The Assembly met at 10.30am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed twominutes’ silence.

Isle of Man TT Races

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am sure that Members will wish to offer their condolences to the family of RaymondHanna, who was killed in a race practice on the Isle of Man.
They will also, I am sure, want to congratulate JoeyDunlop on his twenty-fourth TT victory. He has definitely been crowned king of the road.

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Procedures for Main Estimates and Appropriation Act

Mr Mark Durkan: I wish, with permission, to make a statement on the process for examining the Main Estimates for the services provided by the Northern Ireland Departments for the current financial year and the reflection of these Estimates in an Appropriation Act. The approval of the Estimates and the passing of an Appropriation Act are among the most important responsibilities of the Assembly.
Members will recall that on 15 December 1999 I presented the Executive’s budget proposals for the financial year commencing 1 April 2000 to the Assembly. The intention, clearly expressed, was that the Assembly and the departmental Committees would have the fullest possible opportunity to scrutinise those spending proposals. Following that scrutiny the budget would be reviewed by the Executive before being placed before the Assembly for approval. The approved budget allocations are the basis on which Departments draw up their detailed spending estimates for the year and these require separate approval by the Assembly.
Suspension meant that the process of scrutinising the budget proposals through the Assembly could not be completed before the beginning of the financial year. However, during suspension the Secretary of State confirmed the allocations for the Northern Ireland Departments in line with the Executive’s December budget proposals. These allocations were further increased for health and education spending as a result of additional resources received in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget on 21 March.
Although it is not feasible for the Assembly to resume the scrutiny of the budget, which was interrupted in February, there is still the opportunity for substantive consideration of spending proposals for this financial year through the process of approving the Main Estimates. Members will appreciate that approval of the main spending Estimates for Departments and the voting of money through an Appropriation Act are matters of the utmost importance. They are the essence of responsible government.
As a result of suspension the Assembly was unable to deal with the spring Supplementary Estimates for 1999-2001 and the vote on account for 2000-01. These were approved by Parliament in March.
Taking a vote on account in advance of the incoming financial year is normal practice to allow the continuation of public services until the Estimates are approved in the summer. For most services a uniform 45% of the anticipated expenditure for 2000-01 was approved to provide Departments with the legal authority to continue to incur expenditure on previously approved services for several months into the new financial year.
The vote on account is only to provide interim financing for services. In most instances this funding will be exhausted before the end of the summer recess. Unless the Assembly approves the balance of the funds for 2000-01 before then, Northern Ireland Departments will be unable to incur any further expenditure on services.
There is a limited amount of time available to us to consider and approve the Estimates and deal with the Appropriation Bill before the start of the summer recess, and I have taken that into account in what I am now proposing.
There are two main elements in the procedure for approving Estimates, one of which is the consideration of a Supply resolution by the Assembly. That would seek the Assembly’s approval for the total amount of the balance required for the 2000-01 Estimates. In effect the Assembly would be being asked to approve the spending plans as set out in the Estimates booklet.
I will be tabling such a resolution for debate next week, approval of which will require cross-community support. The 2000-01 main Estimates were published today and copies have been placed in the Library. However, in order to give the greatest opportunity for consideration of this document, advance copies were given to Members last week.
As well as the Supply resolution, the Assembly has to consider an Appropriation Bill to confirm Departments’ legal authority to incur expenditure. The Appropriation Bill is an important piece of financial legislation, the drafting of which must reflect the Supply resolution approved by the Assembly. A schedule to the Bill confirms the amounts approved for the services of each Department as set out in the Estimates. Only when this Bill has completed all its stages and received royal assent will the additional cash be available for services. I should add that Appropriation Acts are not permanent statutes but are repealed after the period they cover has expired.
The full procedure for the Assembly’s consideration of legislation as set out in Standing Orders cannot be completed between now and the start of the summer recess. However, Standing Orders also provide for Bills to be taken by an accelerated passage procedure in exceptional circumstances. The need for urgent approval of the Estimates and the passing of an Appropriation Bill is very clearly exceptional in current circumstances.
I am therefore seeking leave to use the accelerated passage procedure for the Appropriation 2000 Bill, which is being introduced. The timetable I am proposing for the entire process, following the introduction and First Stage of the Bill today, is for the Supply resolution to be debated on Monday12June when the resolution will also be put to the vote. Also on the 12June, immediately following that vote on the Supply resolution, the Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill will be taken. That will be followed on 19June by the Consideration Stage of the Bill, and on 27June by the Final Stage. Even though accelerated passage means that there will not be a formal Committee Stage, I have discussed the matter with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, and my Department will give every assistance to the Committee if it wishes to examine the Estimates and the Bill within this timetable.
I accept that what I am proposing is not ideal. However, it allows the maximum opportunity both for consideration of the estimates for 2000-01 during the next month and for the passage of an Appropriation Act by a process allowed for in Standing Orders. The Assembly could attempt to take the Appropriation Bill by the normal procedure, but that would require special sittings during the summer recess. There would also have to be a Committee Stage, but that could not run for the full 30days required by Standing Orders if the Bill is to be completed before the vote on account expires. I believe that the use of accelerated passage is acceptable in these circumstances.
I hope that I will not have to seek the Assembly’s leave for accelerated passage for future Appropriation Bills. Generally, legislatures design special procedures specifically for routine financial business. It has not yet been possible for the Assembly to do this. I hope that we will do so as soon as possible, so that suitable procedures are in place the next time we consider Estimates and Appropriation. That could be as early as the autumn, depending on the requirement for any Supplementary Estimates in this financial year.
My Department and I stand ready to provide whatever assistance the Assembly may find helpful in identifying and evaluating the possible options. In the meantime we must make the best use of the procedures available to us. That is what I aim to do.

Mr Speaker: Members have up to 30 minutes for questions on that statement.

Mr Seamus Close: The Minister emphasised the importance of the Appropriation Bill. Members will share that sentiment. The essence of government is the getting and spending of money and the choosing of priorities. However, the Minister went on to say that the proper procedures could not be fulfilled. Does he consider the importance of the Bill to be outweighed by the prospect of eating into the summer recess? We have had three months imposed holiday. Is it not important to give more credibility to ourselves and to this House by giving up some of the recess in order to do our job properly?

Mr Mark Durkan: I take the hon Member’s point. I stressed the importance of the Appropriation Bill. The recess has been set by others acting quite properly on behalf of the Assembly. It is not for me to presume to change it. I have come before the Assembly to make it clear that if we are to be able to continue spending through the latter part of the recess we need to get the Appropriation Bill approved now. Even if we were to take this matter into the recess we still would not have sufficient time for a full Committee Stage and have enough money to spend. The options for the Assembly are clear.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I agree with Mr Close. This is very important. I understand what the Minister is saying about the time factor. Will he tell us how much Assembly time next week has been set aside for the matters for which he is responsible?
I wish to raise a further, important question. We have been delighted to hear the good news from Short’s and from the shipyard. There is still a big question mark over the shipyard. Perhaps the Minister could resolve newspaper speculation. Will he allay our worries about the shipyard? He knows that an Appropriation Order can travel "from Dan to Beer-sheba" — I am only travelling to East Belfast to ask him if he can allay our worries.

Mr Speaker: The Member’s first question was on timing. That is a matter for the Business Committee, not for the Minister. I can reassure the Member that the Business Committee is seized of the importance of the Assembly’s having a substantial amount of time to address this matter. When it meets tomorrow the Committee will undoubtedly consider that. I expect substantial time to be set aside. This statement is entirely on the process of appropriation. The Member may wish to ask his question again after the Minister has made his next statement on the Estimates themselves. He may be able to respond then. It would not be in order to respond to that question at this point because we are dealing now with the process, not the content, of appropriation.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I have to abide by your ruling, Mr Speaker, but I do not agree with it. Appropriation is a very wide matter. In the House of Commons there is always liberty given on these matters, but this House —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Member misunderstands the process being followed at present. This is not the Appropriation debate, which is the kind of debate to which he refers, nor is it a statement on the Estimates, where it would also be appropriate. That is the next statement the Minister will be making. This is a statement purely on the process of Appropriation and the question of possible accelerated passage. However, I have no doubt the Member will wish to ask his question again after the next statement.

Mr Francie Molloy: I am pleased that the Assembly will have some opportunity to discuss the Appropriation Bill. It is a vital piece of legislation. As Members will be aware, the Finance and Personnel Committee would normally be handling the Committee Stage of the Bill. However, on this occasion we accept that is not possible because of the time factor. It is important that we look to the future and that we have an opportunity at different stages for the Committee to deal with the issues in question.
The Committee is happy at this stage for the Appropriation Bill to be passed. That is essential so that the Departments are not left short of funds. The Finance and Personnel Committee must also be able to co-ordinate with other Committees to ensure that their concerns can be put before the Assembly.

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome the points made by the Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee. It is simply not possible to pass important legislation of this sort in the time necessary, using the normal procedure. I accept that this is not satisfactory for the Assembly, the Committee or the Executive Committee. However, these are exceptional circumstances, and I remind Colleagues that Standing Orders provide for accelerated passage in precisely such circumstances.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister confirm that even if we proceed with the proposals he has outlined, the figures in the Estimates are fixed in stone? Can they be adjusted? For example, I am not convinced that the money set aside for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is sufficient to deal with the problems with which the agriculture sector is currently beset.

Mr Mark Durkan: The budget allocations were effectively made during suspension. That followed the budget proposals as set out by myself in the Assembly in December. To that extent, it would be impractical to re-open the budget at this stage. However, the debate on the Estimates will give Members such as Mr Paisley Jnr a full opportunity to examine the budget allocations in each Department. If his question implies that there could be a further vote on account, to allow time for further consideration, that in itself would require a new Appropriation Act. It would not ease any of the problems I have identified.

Main Estimates (2000-01), Supply Resolution and Appropriation Bill

Mr Mark Durkan: I wish to make a statement on the Main Estimates for the financial year 2000-01 and the Supply resolution that is being tabled, and which the Assembly will be asked to debate next week. I also wish to comment on the substance of the Appropriation Bill that I hope to introduce today.
It is highly appropriate, on our first day of business following the restoration of devolution, to have an opportunity to review the full range of public services for which we are now responsible. As I emphasised in December, the management of public spending is one of the fundamental responsibilities of any Government.
The restoration of devolution again gives us the opportunity to assume our full and appropriate responsibilities — to move from championing a few issues to deciding among all the issues, and from opposing to leading. We have an opportunity to work together in a unique form of administration, pursuing quality and equality in the management of public services for the good of all the people. The Main Estimates and the Appropriation Bill are at the heart of our responsibilities. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and in line with principles that apply in both London and Dublin, it is my responsibility on behalf of and with the agreement of the Executive Committee to seek the Assembly’s authority for spending on public services. These formal processes very strongly emphasise the Assembly’s role in protecting the interests of the public and ensuring that money is spent well.
I have been working, and will continue to work, with the Finance and Personnel Committee on the process of planning public spending. Members can, and will, hold Departments to account for the money they approve in this process through the Public Accounts Committee. The Main Estimates document provides the reference point and detailed analysis of the spending plans of Departments for this purpose.
It may help if I set out briefly the main financial planning and control processes, which are now our responsibility under devolution. That is the context in which these financial issues should be considered. The key planning process is, of course, the formulation and approval of a programme for government, linked to a budget, which sets out the total expenditure which each Department or programme expects to incur over one or more years ahead.
In normal circumstances the Executive’s proposals for the programme for government and the budget would have been considered by the Assembly and settled before December. However, Members will recall that the start of devolution late last year meant that the budget proposals for this financial year were only put before the Assembly on 15December, and it was not possible to complete the scrutiny of the budget before the process was interrupted by suspension. During suspension the Executive’s budget proposals were confirmed at Westminster. The Secretary of State supplemented them by additional allocations for spending on the health and education programmes from new money provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his March Budget.
The approved budget is the basis on which Departments plan expenditure. However, separate authority to spend money on specific services in a financial year must be sought from the Assembly through the process of Supply. The Supply process involves a number of distinct steps, each of which is important. In the first instance, the Executive must inform the Assembly of the amounts it seeks for specific services. That is the purpose of the Estimates booklet published today and made available to Members. Copies have also been placed in the Library. An advance copy was made available to Members on Friday. As Members will see, the Estimates are quite detailed requests for cash for specific services. They show the estimated amount that can be drawn from the consolidated fund to support each service this year. In some instances receipts will arise in an area of expenditure, and the estimate will show how much of these receipts can be set against spending to reduce the need to vote new funds.
The next stage is that the Assembly should be afforded the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the Main Estimates as published. The means by which that opportunity is provided is the Supply resolution that the Assembly will be asked to debate next week.
In order to give statutory authority to the moneys voted for services, and to ensure that funds provided to the Executive for one purpose are not used for other purposes, the sums voted are legally appropriated to the specific services and the authority to draw money to meet these expenditures will be confirmed in an Appropriation Act.
Members will recognise from this brief description that the Estimates and the Appropriation Act are central to the Assembly’s control over the use of public funds. The appropriation accounts, which will be produced after expenditure has been incurred, will be produced on a corresponding basis to the Estimates. This will enable the Assembly to compare actual expenditure with the Estimates that it approved and to have an explanation of any significant differences.
I emphasise that the form of the Estimates is a matter to be agreed between the Executive Committee and the Assembly. For the moment I am content to proceed on the basis of the well established practice of presenting Estimates for the cash amounts needed to finance services.
Looking to the future, the Assembly should be aware that work is well advanced on moving the planning and control of government expenditure to a resource accounting and budgeting basis. This would bring the treatment of the Government’s finances into line with commercial practices. It would also allow a better appreciation of the full resource cost of pursuing each of the objectives in Departments and hence help to improve decision taking. This shift in accounting and budgeting practice would have to be reflected in changes in the form of the Estimates. I look forward to discussing these matters with the Finance and Personnel Committee and the Assembly in due course.
The figures in the Estimates booklet are testimony to the importance of the business we are dealing with today. For the health sector, we are seeking to spend almost £2billion this year to sustain hospitals and pay the doctors and nurses who provide health care for everyone. In the education programme, the £1·2billion we are seeking will fund over 1,300 schools and pay for 20,000 teachers to educate more than 350,000 schoolchildren.
The same holds across the total range of public services. Roads and public transport, support for industry and our farming community, support for the housing programme and the many other important services and programmes across all Departments depend on the money the Assembly is being asked to approve in the Estimates and in the Appropriation Bill.
I hope that the Assembly has found this brief description of these important financial instruments helpful. There will be a full opportunity to examine matters in detail in the debate next week, but I will endeavour to respond to any general queries on the Estimates which Members may have.

Mr Speaker: Members have up to an hour for questions to the Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I misunderstood what was happening today. Had I heard about a second statement I would have reserved my remarks for that. If I offended you in any way, Mr Speaker, I apologise. As you have indicated, I can raise that matter now.
People were thrilled to know of the situation in the aircraft industry and delighted to know that the union between the Canadian company and Short’s has been so fruitful. I am sure we all wish them well. We were also delighted about the shipyard news, though what was announced was different from what happened with the investment from Canada in Short’s
There have been some alarming newspaper accounts about a big question mark hanging over the company concerned. It is dealing with large luxury vessels of immense price, yet it can only find an office in a red-brick villa in a street somewhere in Luton. It could not be contacted by phone, and people who ought to know seem to have no knowledge of it.
I do not know what truth there is in those rumours. However, I would like the Minister to set our minds at ease. Some of my constituents say that their jobs must now be in greater jeopardy than ever.

Mr Mark Durkan: The hon Member is correct in referring to the great sense of encouragement everyone felt when they heard the news about Short Brothers plc and Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding and Heavy Industries Ltd. Some of the questions asked recently about these firms are connected with the issue of the Estimates. However, there are particular matters on which the Minister of Trade, Enterprise and Investment is working, and I am aware that the IDB is working closely with Short’s and Harland and Wolff to maximise the prospects that were apparent for both companies. It would be inappropriate for me to talk up any other difficulties or to speak out of turn about a matter which is the responsibility of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I am seeking guidance from the Minister or from you, a Chathaoirligh, because, as has been said, the suspension made it impossible to deal with these Estimates in the normal way. I am reminded of the recent announcement about the IDB’s essential failure despite its substantial budget. I am concerned, even from my own constituency perspective, that if the money spent by IDB had been allocated in a better or different way there might be a far better record — or even a record — of job creation in quite a number of constituencies. Mr Durkan and you, Mr Speaker, have touched on a matter specific to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: when will we have an opportunity to discuss that Department’s estimates in detail? How was that money spent, and how might it be spent better in the future?

Mr Mark Durkan: In my statement, I outlined the different stages that I propose would be used for the Appropriation Bill and the Supply resolution. I indicated that, next week, the debate would be much more comprehensive and detailed. Members will be able to pursue aspects of the Estimates that are of interest or concern to them.
I take it that the Member was referring in particular to the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee. The IDB is preparing a formal Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply to the Public Accounts Committee, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the report until that document has been provided. That is established practice.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his statements and for his efforts to brief the Department of Finance and Personnel Committee on these matters. We realise that we have an inherited programme and, therefore, inherited costs. At this stage there is little opportunity to tweak them. However, we will have an opportunity to tweak them with the preparation of a programme of government which, the Minister has indicated, will be completed before December.
It is essential to remember that when we move into the next set of Estimates the debate will, to a large extent, have taken place before it comes to the House. The allocations will have been horse-traded before that point is reached. Can the Minister advise us on the timetable he sees being pursued in order to have that debate carried out. Also, what role does he see for himself, as the person holding the ring in many of those negotiations?

Mr Mark Durkan: As MrLeslie is aware from previous discussions we have had with the Finance and Personnel Committee, we want to improve the planning process in relation to public expenditure, and we want to make sure that the Committee and the Assembly have far more foresight in relation to these issues than the procedures that we have had to follow on this occasion have allowed. As I indicated in my statement, I believe that the shift to resource accounting and budgeting will help afford us greater opportunities in that regard in terms of the quality of information available and the sense of direction people will be able to give through the different sort of procedures we have been talking about. Clearly it is not a matter for me as Minister of Finance and Personnel to ordain precise procedures. We genuinely want to discuss and develop these with the Committee and with the Assembly. I previously had some discussion with yourself, MrSpeaker, on exactly how we could improve these procedures in everybody’s interests, but not least in the interests of the Assembly being able to have a significant and helpful say, in terms of both scrutiny and proper planning of expenditure.

Mr Seamus Close: The Minister refers to the key planning process of government as being the formulation of a programme of government. I totally agree. Does he agree that we are indulging in what is, to a large extent, a cosmetic exercise? The cart has been put before the horse. In effect we are following, rather slavishly, certain attitudes. We are seeking to impose a form of government which is being brought about by a totally unaccountable regime. If we are to fulfil people’s dreams and achieve a new beginning, we have got to change — fundamentally change — the direction in which government has been going and the way in which it has been applied to the people of NorthernIreland.
Very recently, for example, we all received a press release from the Housing Executive. This year the Housing Executive is faced with a budget reduction of about £13·7million compared to last year. We know, for example, that 40,000 dwellings are unfit for human habitation, yet, by following slavishly a programme drawn up by unaccountable administrators, we are going to be approving these types of figures. Until we get a programme of government — one which has to be fundamentally different to that which applied before — we, if we are truly going to be doing the job for which we were elected, have got to move in a totally different direction. If we do not, we will be failing the people, failing to give them new opportunities and new hopes and failing to fulfil their aspirations.
Today, many parents will have had dropping through their letter boxes —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind Members that this is meant to be an opportunity to pose questions, not to make speeches.

Mr Seamus Close: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My question is about the letters to young people who are hoping to go to university this October. They are being told that their circumstances will have to be assessed. Forms will be sent out on which they will have to give details of income. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is not right. We must restore student grants and get away from the fact that the ability to pay is some sort of gauge as to whether students can afford to go to university. Does the Minister agree that there are many areas like this where direction must be changed through a new programme of government?

Mr Speaker: Order. I must invite the Minister to respond to the question or questions.

A Member: Which question?

Mr Mark Durkan: I was going to ask the same thing.
The hon Member, in his opening remarks, described today’s exercise, and, I assume, the exercise that I have talked about for the coming weeks, as cosmetic. It is not a cosmetic exercise; it is a vital legal requirement. If we were not to go through such a process we would not have the money to continue to discharge the vital public services that we have been talking about.
When I originally brought the budget proposals to the House on 15December I did not pretend that we were working on any basis other than that of the allocations previously laid down by the Labour Government in the comprehensive spending review. We have been upfront and open about it. It was agreed by each Member of the Executive Committee, and we put proposals to the House on that basis. It was the only way we could conduct business in the absence of the programme of government, which we are seeking to develop.
Some aspects of the points raised are for relevant departmental Ministers. However, the gross resources available for housing under these Estimates could be around £602 million — hardly cosmetic, and not to be dismissed. Within that total, the Housing Executive’s gross resources will be £528 million, and £71 million of that will be for housing associations, whose funding will be supplemented by an additional £49million from private finance. I note the point made in relation to the Housing Executive press release. However, I would make the point relating to the total Estimates provision for the housing programme.
In relation to the issues of young students hoping to go into further and higher education, the Member is aware that my colleague the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has initiated a review of student financial support and we await his report.

Mr Speaker: Members may be having difficulty hearing what is going on in the Chamber. I encourage all Members to put their questions and make their remarks as clearly as possible. We are looking into the technical side of things to see if improvements can be made.

Ms Jane Morrice: I will be as clear as possible.
I would like to raise the issue of European funding because there is much concern that money under the European programme — Peace I — may be exhausted at the end of June. Hundreds of jobs could be lost, particularly in the community sectors — valuable sectors — because Peace II, the second European peace programme, will not be coming on stream for some months. I note that the Department of Finance and Personnel has the authority to borrow on the credit of the sums. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that the gap between Peace I and Peace II is bridged, possibly by borrowing? Can he ensure that jobs will not be lost as a result? [Interruption]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: A mobile phone is ringing.

Mr Speaker: It was in the Gallery, and the owner has left.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for her question. The development of the new structural funds programmes —an important development — is a lengthy process and involves negotiation and agreement of a community support framework, the operational programmes and the programming complements. We are pressing ahead with negotiations with the European Commission with all speed, partly to ensure that the gap between the old and new programmes is minimised. All the funding bodies in the existing programmes were fully aware of the need for sustainability and to have suitable exit strategies in place. However, I recognise that some existing projects, particularly those under the single programme, will have difficulty in sustaining their activities and interim funding arrangements have been introduced by Departments, in particular the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. There does not appear to be the same need under Peace I, particularly when £160 million of the total programme allocation remains to be spent before 31December2001.

Rev William McCrea: Would the Minister agree with me that when exercising government, meeting demands for additions to some budgets means, because of the block allocation of finance, reductions to other budgets? It is easy to make demands, but it is not so easy to fill the hole.
I note that the allocation in the Estimates for local government services shows an increase that is below the rate of inflation. Local government elections will be held next year. Can the Minister assure us that sufficient finances have been allocated to ensure that local democracy will go ahead unhindered?
The Environment Committee has identified a very serious lack of education officers for road safety. Will the Estimates that the Minister has put before the House today assist in the employing of such officers as a matter of urgency?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his very helpful and responsible observation about how easy it is to propose spending as opposed to resourcing. I am sure that that point will be used repeatedly by my Department and me in reply to him and others.
In answer to his second question, I refer him to his initial remarks.
Most of the matters that MrMcCrea raised are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. On some of the issues of local government funding, the Department has been working closely on options with a representative group of council chief executives and finance officers. They have been reviewing the formula for the distribution of the resources element of the general exchequer grant to district councils. That review is being progressed as a matter of urgency, and I hope a new formula can emerge. That would, however, require the amendment of primary legislation, and that would entail full consultation with district councils and the Assembly. Expenditure on road safety is a matter for the Minister and the Department to determine.

Mr John Fee: I think that the Minister will agree that the accelerated passage of the Estimates is not the most ideal way in which to deal with them, but will he agree with me that this book of Estimates is in itself a statement of the enormous advances that we have made over the last number of years and months? It is a detailed account of a programme of government which we will be pursuing for the next 12 months, and it is a tribute to the civil servants and officials who have reorganised government in Northern Ireland into the new Departments. It is also a tribute to his own Department. Will he accept that I will not be so kind to him next week?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am surprised that he has been so kind to me even today, so I certainly have no expectations for next week.
I would like to take up the point about the production of the Estimates themselves. I did say that we issued advance copies of the Estimates last week. Clearly things have moved quickly. Estimates do not just reflect the allocations as outlined in my statement here on 15December; they also include the further Estimates that have resulted from the Chancellor’s budget allocation, the allocations to health and education that were made by the Secretary of State and confirmed by the Executive Committee only last Thursday. Estimates are absolutely up to date, and it is a tribute to the various civil servants involved that we have completed so much. It is certainly not their fault that we are caught in circumstances, not of our own making, that mean that we cannot subject the Appropriation Bill to the length of stages that would ordinarily be available to us under Standing Orders.
Once again, I emphasise the importance of ensuring that we get as much certainty and clarity about this as about all the other matters on which people have said we need certainty and clarity. It is not in anyone’s interests to conduct Assembly business in ways that lead people to worry that the money needed to continue to fund public services could run out before the end of the summer recess. That is why we need the accelerated passage — to ensure that the money is available and that everyone’s efforts and concentration can be directed towards managing the money properly, rather than worrying about whether it is available.

Mr Sammy Wilson: First, I wish to thank the Minister for saying that he will give us some clarity and certainty in the answers that he provides to the House. I hope that will be clearer than the clarity given to some members of the Ulster Unionist Party and that it will not take the form of secret letters. With regard to allocations, I understand that the process is not satisfactory and all Members will agree. However, because of the interim arrangements, it is probably something we have to live with.
The figures are based on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review and, as some Members have indicated, there are questions as to how satisfactory that has been in ensuring the allocation of moneys to particular issues. After we adopt the Appropriation, I am unclear as to whether there will be an opportunity during the year for reallocation, not only within Departments but between Departments, if it is thought that there will be an underspend of budget allocations at some stage. We have already seen the problems with the Housing Executive, and with other areas, and we will need to look at these. I understand the opportunity cost of doing this. However, will there be an opportunity to look again at reallocating between Departments?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. A series of monitoring rounds conducted during the year help to identify programmes under particular pressure because of greater demand than expected and identify easement in terms of anticipated spend. Clearly, one of the reasons for the monitoring round is to ensure the identification of available resources in-year and to properly and strategically redirect them, at that time, to areas where they are needed. Members will recall the exercise that took place after the December monitoring round when further moneys were made available to various programmes and Departments. In particular, extra money was allocated to the Department of Health to deal with apparent winter pressures. It is for this type of circumstance that the in-year monitoring round exists. I intend to work with Departments to try to make the most of those opportunities, and I am sure that Departments will work with their Committees in that regard. I have had discussion with the Finance and Personnel Committee to ensure that they have earlier sight of, and a better insight into, some of the issues involved in the monitoring round.
I accept what people have said about this process. By and large, it is better if people feel that they are not finding out everything about public spending by looking in the rear-view mirror, but that they can see these things coming up ahead and can get information from the dashboard. That is part of what we are trying to do and improve.

Mr Danny O'Connor: When the Chancellor allocated an extra £3 billion in his budget statement, only £86 million came to Northern Ireland for additional public spending. Proportionately Northern Ireland should have received about £140 million. Does the Minister agree that we lost out because no Minister or Executive was in place at that time?
Can the Minister assure us that when additional funding is made available from Westminster we shall not be sold short again?

Mr Mark Durkan: The issue raised is much bigger than the question implies. That does not mean, however, that I shall give a much bigger answer at this point. The question clearly raises issues that touch upon the Barnett formula, and precisely how Northern Ireland gets its share of the money identified and allocated at UK level. Obviously, it is an issue which not just my Department and the Committee on Finance and Personnel wish to examine and work on. It is being considered by the Executive Committee itself, since we are in a further Treasury spending review due to end in a matter of weeks. That spending review will determine the levels, forms and patterns of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom up to 2003-04. The issues raised by the Member are therefore certainly on everyones’ minds.
However, I stress that the money from the Chancellor’s Budget was very welcome. Last week the Executive confirmed the Secretary of State’s allocation of over £14million to the schools programme and £53million to health. There will be further decisions on the allocation of a further £18million soon, along with moneys available from last year’s end-of-year flexibility exercise of the spending round. We shall shortly allocate that pool of money.

Mr Jim Shannon: I wish to raise a point about the Estimates in the Appropriation Bill specific to the Minister. He said that £1·2billion would be spent on education. Can he confirm that the £7·1million made from the sale of the former Scrabo High School will be included in that money? Can he also confirm that all moneys received from that sale will be used for education provision in the Strangford constituency?

Mr Mark Durkan: Unfortunately I cannot give the Member the confirmation he seeks regarding the latter point. I cannot pledge, or promise, that money allocated to, or released in, the overall programme, whether at the Department of Education or at any other Department, will be spent in a particular constituency. I simply cannot start to deal with questions about different Departments’ programmes in that fashion — it would be inappropriate. That may be disappointing to the Member, but it is the honest answer.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister has said the role of the Assembly is to protect the public interest and ensure that money is spent well. Therefore it is incumbent on Members to ensure this is the case. Is the Minister convinced that sufficient resources are available to combat social security fraud in NorthernIreland? There is a strong perception that one area of social security fraud — namely, motability fraud — is causing great public concern, and it appears not to be beneath some people in this Chamber to rip off the most needy in our society.

Mr Mark Durkan: Again, the Member has raised a matter that is the particular responsibility of a ministerial colleague—in this case, the Minister for Social Development. Clearly, I want all programmes operated with total probity, effectiveness and value for money. Public expenditure has many areas, and it is distributed in a variety of forms. All sorts of questions might be raised or impressions given concerning the degree of abuse with regard to different public moneys.
We want to see proper and appropriate use of all public moneys. Where any Minister or Department comes forward with analysis that identifies levels of abuse that they wish to tackle, my Department would want to work with them positively on that basis.

Mr David Ford: I noted with interest the exchange between the Minister and MrMcCrea on the limitations of the budget being considered. Can the Minister confirm that my Colleague, MrClose has been consistent in his attitude to the need for tax-varying powers in order to provide the essential services for the people of NorthernIreland? Will the Minister also acknowledge that he and his Department have accepted that principle by their own proposal to increase the regional rate by 8% this year, thereby dealing with the potential arguments about block grant being reduced because of taxes being added here? Perhaps he could also tell us if he is just as keen as the DUP on the consequences of his policy leading to, for example, a £13·7 million reduction for the Housing Executive this year.

Mr Mark Durkan: I accept the point in the Member’s question about the consistency of his party Colleague in terms of seeking tax-varying powers. I would ask people, before they think that is going to be the panacea for everything, to remember, whether we have tax-varying powers or not, that we are still going to have finite resources to allocate. Even with the additional moneys that might result from tax-raising powers, we are going to have to take priority-based decisions on their allocation and on their management. We need to consider carefully the experience of other places with tax-varying powers. I have warned previously about the risks of us experiencing a concept of subtractionality in our dealings with the Treasury in that regard, as opposed to some of the questionable experiences of additionality we have had in the past in relation to some moneys.
With regard to the housing money, I stress, yet again, we should not forget the money that is going in to the housing programme. Yes, it is a housing programme which, by its nature, has actually been changing. Like all other programmes, it will have to be examined and assessed in the context of the development of the programme of government. I want to see that all these programmes that are of concern and interest to Members — because they do perform vital services for people throughout the community — are given proper and adequate consideration and, in turn receive the proper and adequate funding. As Members of the Assembly, we are all here to satisfy ourselves on that matter. I will work with the Committee on Finance and Personnel to improve the systems which assure us on that. I have no doubt that the Ministers in their respective Departments and all the Members of the respective Departmental Committees will want to contribute to that. When we made the original budget statement in December we said we wanted all the departmental Committees to peruse the budget proposals in respect of the programmes that came under their Departments. We want these things properly proofed on behalf of Members of the Assembly.

Mr John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his work. Does he take comfort from the fact that all political parties have shown sincerity this morning in taking charge of their own affairs and that never again will the affairs of NorthernIreland be in the hands of absentee landlords from Westminster?

Mr Mark Durkan: Certainly I do, but when I consider the range of questions I am facing here, and being given notice of some of what I am facing next week, I am not sure that I entirely agree. It is a bit like what Talleyrand is reported to have said of Voltaire and Robespierre:
"When I think of either I prefer the other".
Therefore, in this situation, some of the devolution decisions do not look too bad, or it looks handy enough that somebody else is taking those particular decisions. The Member’s point is a good one. This is part of our political induction in taking up our new responsibilities as an Assembly and an Executive. Unfortunately the procedures do not lend themselves to the sort of input and exchange that we would want, but those are circumstances in which we are particularly caught.
I am certainly encouraged by Members’ very positive and well-motivated interest across the range of programmes and the range of Departments. I have made it clear all along that I see the job of the Department of Finance and Personnel as being working with and for all the other Departments. And that means working with and for the Assembly, as well as all its Committees.

Mr John Kelly: A Chathaoirligh, in terms of health services, Minister, are you making provision for areas that might be deemed disadvantaged? I am thinking in particular of areas west of the Bann. IanPaisleySnr asked a question about the shipyard and Short’s. I do not know if he has asked you for money for those projects. If money is going to be allocated to them, will the allocation be equality-proofed in terms of the employment position, particularly in relation to Harland and Wolff?

Mr Mark Durkan: In respect of the question about additional money for Harland and Wolff, I have made the point that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the IDB are working on this. If additional assistance were to be made available beyond what has been talked about and what has been provided for, that would be a matter for future estimates; it is not covered in these Estimates.
In respect of the Member’s equality question, the Estimates have been drawn up on the basis of expenditure plans which meet the requirements of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and, indeed, the new targeting social need policy. The Member talked about the breakdown of the allocation in the area of health and personal social services. He is perhaps a bit like MrShannon when he asked if money in a particular Department’s programme could at this stage be earmarked on a subregional basis. It would be inappropriate for me to do this simply because in the nature of most programmes, and not least in one such as the health and personal social services programme that applies right across the region, it is not always easy to specify.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, like the other Departments, is trying to bring forward new targeting social need measures and achievements in that regard, and clearly it would be a matter for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to articulate those plans. I would, however, like to point out again the significant amount of money that is going into the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, particularly towards health and social services.
It is not just the extra £53million that came from the Chancellor’s last Budget announcement— we are talking about £169million above the planned amount for last year for health and personal social services. That is a cash growth of 9%, and obviously we hope that that cash growth will manifest itself in a helpful and an attractive way in all areas of Northern Ireland.

Mr Derek Hussey: I agree with DrMcCrea’s reference to the swings-and-roundabouts nature of the process, and MrClose voiced his concerns, particularly in relation to the Housing Executive. In replying to MrShannon, the Minister said that he could not specify what would happen to any funds that would result from the sale of the school in his constituency.
But, going back to the housing issue, many Members will have heard from district and regional managers their great concern about the shortfall in the Housing Executive budget. They are also concerned that they cannot make use of the funds from the sales of houses. Will the Minister, in liaison with the Minister for Social Development, look into this issue in order to redress the housing shortage?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am aware, as all Members are, of the pressures felt throughout many public service programmes, including housing. Housing Executive district managers talk to me as much as they do to any other Member. I refer Members again to my earlier remarks about the money going in to the housing programme. It is not uncommon in these exercises for everyone to talk about the little bit of money that is not going in rather than the large sum that is. Housing programme resourcing questions for the medium to long term are a matter on which the relevant Minister may bring forward views, not least in the context of the programme of Government. I wish to ensure that arrangements are in place to allow such resources, as can be released, to go to the various programmes. We have to look at that in the context of all the priorities and experiences in the Northern Ireland block. Arguments and cases brought forward will have to be carefully examined.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, this time I am speaking with my Mid Ulster hat on. I want to return to the question of directing funds to particular areas. It is accepted that ours is a society emerging from conflict, and that has social and economic consequences. If we are to redress some of the problems emerging from that and rebalance the services, it will be necessary to target social need in the area west of the Bann, and we will need to direct finance to that area. MrJohnKelly asked about the hospital service. We need to rebalance the hospital service west of the Bann and redress the neglect that has occurred over a number of years. Will the Minister consider directing most of the 9% increase in the health budget this year to that end, specifically to ensure the South Tyrone Hospital is not allowed to close for lack of funding?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am glad the Member welcomes the extra money for health. Pay and inflation have been particular problems within the health budget for some time. The funds now available remedy the pay deficit and raise the baselines to 2000-01 price levels. I will not pretend that all the extra money is going in to service developments. However, approximately £79 million will be available for that purpose, and Members will want to address the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on how that should best be used.
With regard to the wider questions of equality and targeting social need, all Departments and public bodies are obliged under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to conform to clear and proper equality standards in their plans. The Executive will be developing its work in that area. It is already developing new Targeting Social Need policies, measures and standards. My Department wants to see real targets and indicators in use, rather than the unsatisfactory, impressionistic and anecdotal measures that have been relied on to date. We do not want Targeting Social Need to be another "It’s the thought that counts" — or, worse still, "It’s the afterthought that counts" — exercise. We want to see real targets and indicators used, as far as possible, throughout all programmes. My Department has a role in helping all Departments to come up with sound indicators and targets.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Can the Minister assure me that within the budget set aside for regional development there will be moneys allocated to the upgrading of certain roads in east Antrim — in particular, the A8 from Larne to Belfast? That route is essential for tourism and for the transportation of goods to the rest of the United Kingdom and throughout Europe.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member will be aware of announcements already made by the Minister for Regional Development and the announcements that were made on the basis of the budget allocations as indicated. If the Member was satisfied with those announcements I do not think he needs anything else from me.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: With regard to our beleaguered textile industry, will the Minister provide extra funding for training? In my constituency, West Tyrone, a factory in Plumbridge has closed, with the loss of 145 jobs. That is the equivalent of almost 2,500 jobs in Belfast.

Mr Mark Durkan: The pressure on the textile industry is something we are all very much aware of. From experiences in our constituencies, many of us know just how vulnerable the textile industry is. The issue has been actively taken up by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
The Member mentioned training. The Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has a direct interest in that regard. He and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have been trying to look at ways of helping to strengthen the textile industry. They want to mitigate the sort of pressures which make it so vulnerable, resulting in job losses, and help to make it sustainable and viable, both on the marketing and trading sides. Also, very importantly, they want to bring positive developments to bear, as well as provide assistance on the training side — something that the Members touched on.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I would like to welcome the Minister’s commitment to Targeting Social Need. I understand the time constraints on the passage of the Appropriation Bill. Nevertheless, the public expectation of the Assembly is that it will do things differently. It should seriously consider directing finances to areas of long-term disadvantage. Even a cursory glance at this year’s Estimates indicates that we are going to have more of the same. This is unfortunate. There is a finite amount of resources, but how is the Minister going to balance the finite amount and address the areas where there has been serious long-term underspend by the Government under direct rule? In particular, I would like him to explain why £91million of public money has been committed to the Odyssey project. How does this address the area of targeting social need?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am sure the Member was not suggesting that the £91million she mentioned towards the end of her question would be sufficient to address social need in Northern Ireland. The Executive is going to have to develop how we properly articulate and manage an effective policy in relation to targeting social need, and I have tried to explain that previously. Those are responsibilities for the Executive. There are measures that Ministers and their Departments will want to develop within their own particular programmes. We are also going to have to agree priorities and measures across the full gamut of public affairs and public management. We are committed to doing so. It is simply not within my gift to say that I will direct all the money to every social need that everybody in this Assembly can identify with.
We need to ensure that we design the overall allocation system and manage all our spending programmes in ways that effectively target and meet social need.
The Odyssey Project is costing a total of £91million. There is a range of funding partners — the Millennium Commission, £45million; the Sports Council for NorthernIreland, £2·5million; the Sheridan Group, a private sector investor, £16·9million; Laganside Corporation, £9·25million; with £16·9million coming from the Government. It is important that that detail be noted. The total spend is not coming out of our programme; Lottery money and private money are also involved.

Mr Edwin Poots: I remind the Minister of the previous question asked by DrMcCrea about the council elections. Is sufficient funding being set aside next year for those elections, as the amount of money does not seem to take account of inflation?
The Minister of the Environment was possibly one of the most mean-spirited Ministers during the 72days of the Assembly prior to suspension. He did not spend any money. Can the Minister assure Members that there is enough money in the Environment budget to do something about the major planning backlog, in particular in relation to area plans? Has the Minister of the Environment enough money to take action to help alleviate these problems?

Mr Mark Durkan: The budget was agreed by the Executive Committee. All Ministers and Departments would obviously like more money. All Ministers and Departments are able to point in a very real and credible way to pressures they are experiencing in the management of their budgets. In the Department of the Environment, there are future issues in local government, along with current and pressing issues, and some long-standing matters like the difficulties in the planning area. My Department will continue to work with the Department of the Environment and others to ensure that they have sufficient resources, and that they make the best use of those resources to provide Departmental services efficiently and effectively.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I add my thanks to the Minister for the clarity and transparency with which he has handled the many different questions. Can he assure us that when the INTERREGIII programme comes into effect later this year the mechanism agreed in line with EU considerations — namely, that the money be administered at local level, in our case by the three cross-border committees at local authority level — will continue to apply? Can he assure us that the Department will not be indulging in any kind of additionality or centrality?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for the question. First, I remind Members that the special EU programmes body, established as a result of the agreement, will have a direct interest and a real management role in relation to a variety of EU funds and programmes, including INTERREG.
Secondly, we want to see the sort of models — that ensure more local delivery and local appraisal of the use of key European funds — develop right across all the future European funding programmes. We also believe that it is a model that could usefully be applied in many of the departmental mainstream programmes.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Minister comment on what seems to be a huge percentage increase in the forecast for the superannuation budget for health and personal social services? It is more than the Housing Executive was looking for, and £15million more than was forecast. Has something incredible happened to bring about a 54% increase, way above the 1999-2000 forecast of about £28 million? The figure has turned out to be about £43million.
The New Deal money is ring-fenced and often cannot be touched by Northern Ireland. It has been reprofiled and some of that money has been spent elsewhere. How did this happen? Was that a precedent? Can it be done in future years? I congratulate those who succeeded in doing it, but will the Minister comment on it?

Mr Mark Durkan: In terms of the detail of the reprofiling, I would appreciate more details from the Member so that I can properly pursue the matter and give a fuller and better answer. I am not quite sure about the facts she is raising. I am not disputing them; I am simply asking for more details so that I can give a fuller reply. I certainly will pursue the matter.
In terms of the increases in superannuation, let us remember all that happened in previous years when a Department was bidding for its budget allocation and the Department of Finance and Personnel was agreeing overall budget allocations. We have been informed by previous experiences and by the upcoming pressures that we know about. There is nothing provided for that is not needed, and for which real demand is not clear, visible and apparent. That is why the increase is there.

Appropriation Bill

First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 5/99] to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund certain sums for the service of the year ending on 31 March 2001; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes and to authorise other sums to be applied as appropriations in aid for those purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; and to repeal certain Appropriation Orders.
Bill passed First Stage.

Mr Speaker: The Bill is now available from the Printed Paper Office. For most Bills there will have to be a little more time, but to have this available immediately to Members, the Department of Finance and Personnel took the requisite action. The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until the timing of the Second Stage is determined.

Ground Rents Bill

First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to make provision for the redemption of certain ground rents and other periodic payments.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: When will this Bill be available?

Mr Speaker: The Bill should be available first thing tomorrow. The normal course of events for Bills is that when they pass the First Stage they are published overnight, but special efforts were made in respect of the Appropriation Bill for obvious reasons.

Dogs (Amendment) Bill

First Stage

12.00

Ms Brid Rodgers: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/99] to make provision regarding the destruction of dogs under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: Members will be given a list of further pending business, when a date for Second Stage will be determined.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will it be available tomorrow?

Mr Speaker: Yes, that will be the case with all the Bills that receive First Reading today. Members should now assume that when Bills are given a First Reading they will be available the following day, unless we know otherwise, in which case I shall take responsibility for advising the House.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill

First Stage

Sir Reg Empey: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for the Second Stage is determined.

Education: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Martin McGuinness: A Chathaoirligh. Dia daoibh go léir. Tá áthas mór orm bheith anseo ar madin. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the first sectoral meeting on education of the North/South Ministerial Council held in Dublin Castle on Thursday3February.
Following nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 1 February, MrDermotNesbitt and I attended the sectoral meeting of the Council. The Irish Government were represented by Dr Michael Woods TD, Minister for Education and Science, who was accompanied by Mr Noel Treacy, a Junior Minister in his Department. This statement has been approved by Mr Nesbitt and is also made on his behalf.
Although the Council’s main focus was on education matters, it first noted the resignation of Dr Vincent Cavanagh from the Food Safety Promotion Board, and it agreed the appointment of a replacement board member, Mr Michael Walker.
The objective of the meeting was to agree areas for co-operation on education matters. The Council discussed matters for enhanced co-operation in education which were mandated by the inaugural plenary of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh on 13December1999. These were: educational underachievement; special educational needs provision; teacher qualifications; and school, teacher and youth exchanges. The Council also noted other areas of co-operation, some of which may have potential for further co-operation.
In relation to educational underachievement the Council decided to establish joint working groups to focus on three issues: developing proposals which would contribute to encouraging pupils’ attendance at school, particularly how parents may be better equipped to support their children in the learning process; improving the literacy and numeracy skills of pupils, including the training of support staff, especially in the specialised areas of early years and dyslexia; and developing a means of establishing a register of child protection so that people who may present a risk to the safety and well-being of our children are prevented from working with children and young people.
The council decided to establish a North/South special education co-ordination group, which will undertake a range of work to promote co-operation and to share information and best practice between those involved in special education.
The council also decided to establish a teachers’ working group to examine a range of issues related to teacher mobility.
The council agreed to commission an evaluation of the range and effectiveness of current programmes involving school, teacher and youth exchanges. The research will be undertaken by the Centre for Cross-border Studies in Armagh. A report will be submitted to the next meeting of the council and will include recommendations which will contribute to the development of a more coherent approach to exchanges not just on this island but with other countries. The council will also give further consideration to the administrative mechanisms and support required in this field.
The working groups have been charged with developing initial proposals for the next meeting of the council on the priorities which they have identified, the delivery measures they propose to put in place and the projected timescale for addressing and reporting on these tasks.
The council approved an indicative timetable for future sectoral meetings. The first of these will take place shortly, with further meetings in September and December.
The council agreed the text of a communiqué which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Speaker: There will now follow a period of not more than 45minutes for questions to the Minister.

Mr Danny Kennedy: The Minister will recall that I wrote to him in my capacity as Chairman of the Assembly Education Committee regarding the meeting of the North/South Ministerial council to which his statement refers. I remind the Minister that the Education Committee, on a cross-party basis, expressed its concern that it was not consulted either about the meeting or, particularly, its content. How does the Minister intend to keep his commitment to work closely with the Education Committee on all issues of mutual interest, with particular reference to matters of North/South co-operation?
With regard to the matters raised by the Minister in his statement, may I advise him that the Education Committee has identified the issue of educational underachievement as a possible subject for inquiry by the Committee later this year. Will he and his officials keep my Committee completely informed in the light of his previous commitments?
I note from his statement that the Minister referred to other areas of co-operation. Will he inform the House what these matters are or what these matters are likely to be? In relation to the make-up of the Special Education Co-ordinating Committee and the teachers’ working group on mobility, may I ask who will oversee these groups. What report-back mechanisms will be put in place with regard to the Assembly?
Finally, with reference to the research by the Centre for Cross-border Studies in Armagh regarding school, teacher and youth exchanges, will the Minister refer the detail of this to the Education Committee in advance of the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I accept that during the course of the previous administration of this institution, there were some difficulties in relation to the Education Committee’s being informed and given due notice about announcements and meetings which were to take place. I am very committed to resolving the difficulties which resulted from that. It was also very interesting that they appear to be the only difficulties between the Education Committee and my Department. There will shortly be a meeting between the Member and myself. I think that we can put into effect good working practice, and I undertake to overcome whatever problems and difficulties have arisen. The whole issue of educational underachievement is vitally important, and I look forward to discussing our approach to that.
There has been long-standing co-operation between my Department and the Department of Education and Science in the South on a wide range of issues. Here are a few examples. The European Studies project has been operating since 1986. It began as a joint venture between the Departments of Education in Belfast, Dublin and London and, for the first couple of years, involved a small number of schools. The project has grown in the intervening years and has over 400 secondary-level schools in 21 countries throughout Europe. It engages teachers and young people in teaching and learning in the context of multi-national partnerships using modern information technologies.
The Cross Connect project is a joint venture between the Western Education and Library Board, the vocational education committees of Cavan and Leitrim, and the University of Ulster. It aims to provide a programme of curriculum enrichment in small rural schools.
A further project, sponsored by Eircom with the support of the Departments of Education North and South, involves 50 schools linked through the Internet and by school exchanges. We will want to explore opportunities for further development of these types of activity, which benefit teachers and promote inter-cultural learning among our young people, not just on this island, but, in some cases, in a wider European setting.
The question about who the working committees are ultimately responsible to — whether it be the teachers’ co-ordinating group or the other working groups we have set up — is very important. Ultimately, they have to be responsible to me, as the Minister of Education, and, in the Southern context, to DrMichaelWoods, the Minister for Education and Science. We are content that we have very dedicated and committed civil servants in our Departments who will deal meticulously with all of these issues. Accountability rests with me, and I must report to the Assembly so that people will have the opportunity to question us on our contribution. In effect, that is the position. The work will be overseen by the North/South Ministerial Council, which will meet again in September, although no definite date has been agreed.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Will the Minister take all steps necessary to protect the long-term needs of rural schools so that they can continue to play a key role in sustaining rural communities?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Yes. I am keenly interested in this very important issue. Over a number of years, rural communities have experienced particular difficulties due to the threat that hung over some small rural schools, and which still does.
I appreciate the work that has been done in these schools and the efforts of the boards of governors, the local community, and the teachers, some of whom are working in difficult circumstances. As I have highlighted before, in the issue of education, the conditions under which teachers are teaching in the rural schools are particularly difficult, because some of the schools are old — in some cases, over 100 years old — and are in need of replacement.
I have been very keen to point out to the officials in my Department that all of these matters ultimately will come back to me for decisions, and I have said that there should be a review of how the Department of Education handles the issue of rural schools. I have made it absolutely clear to officials that I would be very reluctant to close any rural school if a large part of the local community is arguing for its retention. It is an important issue and it is one that I take very seriously. My officials are conducting a review and I hope to make the result public soon.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I want to reiterate a point that was made by the Chairman of the Education Committee. The Committee agreed unanimously to send a letter to the Minister about the way in which cross-border meetings are handled. We only find out what happens at the meetings after they have taken place; we have no prior knowledge of the agenda or of how the business links in with the work being carried out in the Assembly. The whole Committee feels that this degree of secrecy is unacceptable and should stop.
The Minister’s statement made reference to educational underachievement. He said that the working group would focus on
"developing a means of establishing a register of child protection so that people who may present a risk to the safety and well-being of our children are prevented from working with children and young people."
Perhaps he can tell us whether the working group will be looking at how the Minister might be prevented from putting impressionable schoolchildren at risk by recalling and boasting about his terrorist involvement when visiting primary schools. Maybe the Minister would like to give us an assurance that, as his contribution to the work of this working —

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. I thought that the purpose of this session was to deal with the Minister’s North/South statement. I do not see what this has got to do with that whatsoever. In fact, I think that this is the second contribution that has not had any bearing on the Minister’s statement.

Mr Speaker: The Member is absolutely correct. This is an opportunity for questions to this Minister, as there are questions to other Ministers, on the subject of the statement which he has made. It is an opportunity for questions, not for speeches, and the questions should be about the statement and not about other matters.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Thank you. If I had said it in Irish he might have understood it — or maybe not. May I finish the question?

Mr Speaker: The Member might try.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I have asked about the working party. I am asking now if the Minister will give us an assurance that, as his contribution to the work of this working party — overseeing the safety and well-being of children — he will on no future occasion boast of his terrorist activities when visiting schools where there are impressionable young children present.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a Sammy. There is going to be no secrecy about what happens at North/South Ministerial Council meetings. After every meeting that I attend I report back to the Executive, and it would be highly valuable and useful, for the Member’s information, if his two Ministers would attend the Executive and get the reports at first hand. They would then obviously be in a much better position to inform the Democratic Unionist Party that no sneaky deals are being done on education. I do undertake to report back faithfully to the Executive and to the Assembly the content of all of the North/South Ministerial Council meetings on education which I attend.
On the second matter, this may be an opportunity to make it clear that the allegations which the Member has made against me in the course of the last few minutes are totally and absolutely without foundation. If the Member would care to check up on what happened during my first visit to a school after becoming Minister of Education, he would find out that the discussion which took place was between me and a single journalist. I did not boast to any child; I did not mention in any public way or in front of children from any school, the fact that at one time in my life I was on the run from the British forces. What was I on the run from? I was on the run from internment.
I was on the run from internment, not from any charge or the ability of the RUC, or anybody else, to bring me before a court. I was going to be interned because I was a Republican. I had not committed any offence, other than being a Republican. It is important to get this in perspective.
Finally, it is an appropriate moment to wish Mr Wilson well in his capacity as the new Lord Mayor of Belfast and to express the desire, which I believe will be shared by the vast majority of our people in this changing situation, that he will make strenuous efforts to be a Lord Mayor for everyone in Belfast.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it in order for a Member to deliberately mislead the House? We have all read about this matter and seen reports on television. He was there; he talked to those children and told them about when he was on the run. It was a good thing that he was on the run, and my party hopes that he will soon be on the run again.

Mr Speaker: It would be wise for all Members to read Hansard before taking any of these matters up and making comment. I have listened very carefully to what has been said on all sides.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis seo ceisteanna a chur ort, a Aire, faoin ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo. I welcome this opportunity to put questions to the Minister.
Issues have been raised this morning about the Education Committee and an alleged unanimity that is not there. These issues will be taken up within the Education Committee, and I would be grateful if the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of that Committee would not refer to decisions or recommendations as unanimous that, in fact, are not.
I ask the Minister — and I know and appreciate that the issue — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the record, it is important that I, as Chairman of the Education Committee, confirm that the decision to write to the Minister in respect of the earlier debate was the unanimous view of my Committee on a cross-party basis.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is not an opportunity for debate, and if a question arises where Members try to confirm or deny the veracity of what other Members have said we enter immediately into a debate. This is not an opportunity for debate; it is for questions that are brief and to the point, single when possible, rather than having as many feet as a centipede, and followed by responses from the Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Surely it is entirely in order for the Chairman of a Committee to counter an attack made upon him from the other end of the House, even though it is during questions to the Minister. Surely it is never right for a Minister to — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. If an opportunity is given for Members to resume after they have already asked questions on such matters, then we will be drawn into a debate. The point that I have made is that this is not an opportunity for debate; it is an opportunity for specific questions to be asked, and I am addressing that to all Members, not only the Member who was called to order.
Please complete your question, MrMcElduff.

Mr Barry McElduff: Will the Minister work closely with MrWoods, Minister of Education and Science, and DrFarren, Minister of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, to task the teachers’ working group to look at harmonising the qualification requirement for admission to teacher training colleges in both parts of the island? For admission to teacher training colleges, GCSE examination result requirements are higher than they are for the leaving certificate.
Secondly, will the Minister also look at the inequity of salaries between teachers North and South?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have no doubt that DrMichaelWoods, SeánFarren and I will be able to work together in a positive fashion on what is obviously a hugely important issue for all of the people of this island.
Only last week we attended an important education conference at Stranmillis College, accompanied by Richard Riley, the United States Education Secretary. We finished with a short lunch, over which we had discussions. It is clear that the relationships between DrWoods, SeánFarren, Richard Riley and myself are excellent. Offers of assistance from the United States in relation to their huge bank of research into all sorts of extremely important educational matters can be taken up by Seán Farren, Dr Michael Woods and myself.
Under European Union Directives we have already gone a long way towards the mutual recognition of teaching qualifications. The South already accepts graduates from certain teacher training courses here, and it would be useful to see if it were practicable to extend that both ways. The key issues will be assurance about the quality of the training provided and the competence of teachers to teach in our schools. It is very important to understand that the issue of salaries is outside the working group’s remit, and some consideration should be given as to whether it can be included later.

Dr Esmond Birnie: My question arises from the focus, in relation to educational underachievement, on increasing standards in literacy and numeracy. Clearly there are significant problems worthy of attention. I understand that, according to some surveys, up to one in five of the adult population here cannot decipher the instructions on a medicine bottle; something indicative of basic literacy. Given that both Northern Ireland and the Republic do badly in basic functional literacy and numeracy — we know this from international surveys, so it is no longer a matter of doubt — will the joint working group, to which the Minister has referred, avoid becoming too insular by simply restricting itself to comparison between the two jurisdictions? Will it be able to take into account best practice in numeracy and literacy improvement in Great Britain, the United States of America, Europe, the Far East, and indeed anywhere else in the world which is relevant?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Obviously, I accept the huge importance of the issue the Member raises. I think that there are three key areas in tackling educational underachievement. In most of our schools where performance is lowest, attendance rates are also too low. We all know that teachers cannot teach pupils who are not there. Literacy and numeracy are, of course, the basic skills which open the door to the rest of the curriculum. Employers and others complain of poor results from many school leavers in these areas. Child protection is simply a fundamental duty for all of us.
These issues were identified because they are priorities both North and South, and in the case of the measures needed to stop unsuitable people finding work with children, east and west also. However, there will in due course be opportunities for us to look at other areas where joint working could bring benefits. The Member is absolutely right when he says we should not be insular in dealing with this matter. We must be open about it and recognise that there are deficiencies. There is a responsibility on the educational authorities, North and South, to examine education systems in other parts of the world to see if ideas can be harnessed to benefit the children of this island. We are very committed to doing so.
As I stated earlier, the contacts we now have with the Department of Education in the United States will be invaluable to us, but we should not restrict or confine ourselves to that country. We must examine other education systems throughout the world to see if we can put into practice processes which will benefit all our children, eventually eradicating the many deficiencies in the system.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his statement. This is one of the first instances of good communication between the Minister, the Education Committee and the Assembly. I did voice my concern about the North/South Ministerial Council meeting during the Education Committee meeting, and I supported the letter, as the Chairman said. My concern was that there should be good communication. There was no question of having concerns about secrecy because secrecy would not be allowed.
Within the priorities for enhanced co-operation the Minister has outlined education underachievement and special education. As the Chairman pointed out, quite rightly, we are looking at those issues as well. I am concerned about the overlapping of research and work, so we need to have some co-operation and information. How will this be co-ordinated? Will you ask the Council, at its future meetings, to look at the question of integrated and Irish-medium education so as to enhance the co-operation of the North/South Council?

Mr Speaker: I remind Members to address their questions through the Chair.

Mr Martin McGuinness: To repeat what I said earlier, I am very committed to having an open Administration and I would hate to think that anybody felt that there was secrecy at work. It is vitally important that there is a good relationship between the Department of Education and the Minister, in particular, and the Education Committee. I am committed to try to bring that about.
Also, it is important that the Assembly be aware that the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on Education came before the suspension of the institutions. It is important that people understand that during the period of suspension we had a situation where no work was taking place in relation to the sectoral meeting. The officials, in fact, had to discontinue the meetings which Michael Woods and I had authorised on behalf of the North/South Ministerial Council during that period. Obviously that puts us at a tremendous disadvantage insofar as it is not possible, even at this time, for me to have full information, simply because of the backlog of work.
It is also important for people to understand that many of the areas we are dealing with are high priorities North and South, and officials, North and South, are dealing with these issues on an ongoing basis. In relation to working in a joint fashion, during the course of recent months that has not been happening and it has only recommenced when the institutions were restored. We are behind schedule in relation to all the matters that we are dealing with.
In relation to Irish-medium and integrated education, obviously these are issues that we are going to have to deal with as we proceed. The Executive Committee, this Assembly and the Department of Education in the South will have to consider whether or not there are other matters that can be dealt with by officials. My statement makes it clear that we are dealing basically with the four areas that have been mentioned: educational underachievement; special education provision; teacher, pupil and school exchanges; and teacher qualifications.
We recognise that the delay has put us all behind schedule. There are obviously difficulties that need to be dealt with.
Officials have hit the ground running as I hope we have done so here, and the Ministers in the Executive. The officials have returned to attend to their responsibilities under the North/South Ministerial Council, and I am satisfied that they are working very hard to get it back on track as quickly as possible.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Minister recognise that the present funding arrangement is one cause of the underachievement in many schools? Does he also recognise, in terms of development, proposals which encourage pupils to attend school and better equip their parents? I know from my experience as a councillor in Belfast, that there are many schemes throughout the five education and library board areas that are doing this, and we should recognise their work and achievements. Has the Minister’s Department been in contact with the boards to find out about the good practice schemes which deal with such issues?
Moving onto numeracy and literacy, I recognise, particularly in my constituency, that there are low levels of numeracy and literacy, and that there is a cost to all in that. The Belfast Education and Library Board does not have the money to implement schemes to deal with this problem. Will it be getting additional money to deal with this, or will the money come out of the Department’s current budget? There have been a number of changes to the curriculum, changes, it seems, from one year to the next. Does the Minister recognise that a lot of pressure has been put on teachers by these changes and that they too can contribute to educational underachievement? The Minister also referred to school attendance and to the problem of underachieving schools which pupils do not attend. Has the Minister looked at the differences between schools in disadvantaged areas and schools in affluent areas and at why the teachers and pupils seem to perform better in the latter?

Mr Martin McGuinness: School funding arrangements are under review at the moment, as I have mentioned previously in other debates. They are under review with an eye to achieving a fairer allocation. Money has been made available to enable the education and library boards to promote good practice, literacy and numeracy. They have, I think, each received £900,000 this year for that. The point that the Member made about focusing on areas of social disadvantages needs to be taken seriously and not just by ourselves and the Department of Education. There is a huge responsibility on the Government to face the reality that many disadvantaged areas have tremendous pressure on them in this. I know for a fact that absenteeism from schools in socially disadvantaged areas is much greater than in other areas, and that needs to be focused upon. My Departmental officials and I are committed to focusing on this point in order to find ways of improving the situation.
RichardRiley made a submission to a meeting at Stranmillis College and said that the state of Connecticut, which pays the highest salaries to teachers in the United States, has the best examination results. Now that was not a scientific study and does not prove any case, but we all know and understand that teachers are under tremendous pressure. I agree with MrHutchinson that every time there is a review of the curriculum, it is hugely difficult for teachers to make the changes that need to be made. I know for a fact that computer technology has now effectively dominated all of our lives and not least the lives of teachers.
There are all kinds of stresses and strains on the teaching profession. It is important to recognise the huge contribution that teachers have made to the welfare and teaching of our children in difficult circumstances.
In disadvantaged areas, there is a schools support programme that gives professional support to schools. Substantial funding is directed to improving standards in these areas. We must recognise the pressures on teachers. From discussions with my officials, it has become clear that people are focussed on getting these things right. It is going to take some time, but it is within our ability.
My final point is one that I developed in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ during my previous period in this job. The schools estate is not in a good condition. As I said then, we will need hundreds of millions of pounds to resolve the outstanding problems. If we are to educate our children properly, it must be done in a conducive atmosphere. I was unable to attend the opening of the new school in Keady last week, but doubtless Members saw the photographs and the television coverage. It looked to be a beautiful development. I would like all our children to be educated in such conditions. We will not achieve that overnight, but we need to work towards that end.
It is important that the Assembly, the Executive and indeed the British Government recognise the dire need for extra education funding. All these problems — educational underachievement, social disadvantage, dyslexia and special needs education — require funding. If the funding is not there, we will always be fighting an uphill battle. We know what the problems are and my officials are focussed on them. They will work hard to eradicate the problems within the education system.

Mr Speaker: Quite a number of Members wish to ask questions. We agreed on 45minutes, so I ask Members to be concise with their questions and the Minister to be concise with his answers so that we can deal with as many as possible.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I commend the Minister on his report. I agree that children need to be educated in an atmosphere conducive to their personal development.
Will the Minister tell us why the proposed child protection register is listed under educational underachievement? Some abused children do underachieve, but others dedicate themselves to getting an education to show that they have survived. These children might be stigmatised if the register were associated with underachievement.
Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee agreed last week to inquire into children’s services, and in particular the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995? The Committee will be considering child protection. Does the Minister’s proposal cover only those working in education, or will it also cover those working outside that sector? If that is the case, then the proposal should be referred to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee.
I would also like the Minister to note that in Northern Ireland we are falling far behind England, Wales and Scotland where there is currently in existence the Protection of Children Act 1999. That legislation does not exist here, and if it is the case that such legislation does exist in the Republic of Ireland, it may be something that the next meeting would like to look at.
Finally, I share the Minister’s view that we should share good practice and information, particularly where there are administrations in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is most important that in this matter of child protection we look at the issue of prevention. In a country as small as ours — Northern Ireland has a population of just over 1·5million, and the Republic a population of just over 3million — this is a very pertinent issue, and if there is anything we can do to prevent the future abuse of children then a register may help. However, it is only one piece of the work in the whole area of action that is needed. It is not a new problem, but it has now been named, and we need to do something about it urgently.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I take the point in relation to how we categorise these particular issues. I will strive to consider this further because the Member makes an important point. It is very important to understand that the register is basically for adults who are judged unsuitable to work with children, not the children. The register is intended to cover all education and health workers. It will cover the North in collaboration with everywhere else around these islands. There is undoubtedly excellent contact between the officials in all areas, and people do understand the need to get this right.
The points MsMcWilliams made are absolutely valid, and I would not dare to suggest that we have in place at the moment the proper structures, programmes or systems required to deal with the matter in an adequate fashion. We all know that the debate about child abuse has taken off recently. Clearly we now have a society prepared to face up to all the difficulties that this issue has for children, for families and for society in general. We are absolutely committed to dealing with these issues. I cannot deal with all of them here today because I do not have the details, but my Department will write to the Member in detail about the points that she has raised.

Mr Alban Maginness: I also welcome the Minister’s statement. This meeting shows the practical benefits of North/South co-operation in the field of education. My question is also about the register of child protection. May I ask the Minister to make that a priority. There is a danger that unsuitable persons are slipping through the net in both jurisdictions, and I believe that we should work with haste to establish the register in order to prevent this happening.
Finally, everyone here should deplore the frivolous party political manner in which AssemblymanSammy Wilson approached this very serious matter of the protection of children.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I appreciate the Member’s comments and his support. I will make a register on child abuse a priority with my Department. I also think that DrMichaelWoods and others throughout this island will have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting that.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The issues raised at the Ministerial Council between Northern Ireland and the Republic — which, coincidentally, do not have the consent of our community, but that is a side issue — were, according to this statement, approved and made on behalf of MrDermotNesbitt. These issues apply equally if not more so to other regions of the United Kingdom such as Scotland and the North of England. What provision has been made to have these and similar issues raised at the appropriate ministerial level within the United Kingdom?

Mr Martin McGuinness: To answer the first part of that question, it is important that we understand that all the institutions established as a result of the Good Friday Agreement were put to the people in a referendum in 1998, and over 70% — Unionist, Loyalist, Republican and Nationalist — voted for them. Let nobody be under any illusion about the support achieved here in the North for the new institutions and the huge support that we achieved in the South. Overall, there was over 80% support on the island for the establishment of the Assembly, the Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and the Implementation Bodies. There is democratic support on the island for these institutions, and I take my responsibility very seriously, as I believe all the pro-agreement parties, which are participating in a very positive and constructive way, consistently do.
On the second point, we are all open to learning as much as we can about all the issues that affect the lives of our people and children. I have no difficulty at all in talking to people in England, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else about how we can improve education for our children. We need an open-minded approach, and to recognise that we are living in a changing world. Everybody has the duty to move forward positively and constructively, with openness, to improve the educational standards of our children; I am absolutely committed to that.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions is up.
The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.
On resuming —

Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North / South Ministerial Council held on 9February2000.

Ms Brid Rodgers: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the first North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission sector took place on 9February.
Following nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, MrDermotNesbitt and I represented Northern Ireland. The Irish Government was represented by MrFrankFaheyTD, Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources.
The papers for the Council were cleared in draft by the Executive Committee on 1February and were circulated in final form on 8February.
The main thrust of the meeting was to give impetus to the new Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Accordingly, the meeting opened with an oral progress report from MrPeterSavage, the chairman of the Commission, and MrDerickAnderson, the chief executive (designate), who attended for this item only. They were able to confirm that staff had transferred without difficulty from the Foyle Fisheries Commission, that the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Order 1999 had also transferred successfully their prosecution and enforcement powers, and that good progress was being made in respect of their new headquarters. In addition, they described the interim agency arrangements which allowed the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the Carlingford area through the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board.
The Council noted that the legislation to give the new Commission its powers to develop and license aquaculture forms part of the Executive’s legislative programme, and MrFahey confirmed that he would aim to keep in step with the progress of the Northern Ireland legislation in making parallel legislation in respect of the Irish jurisdiction.
The Council also took note of a progress report on the transfer of Irish Lights to the new Commission. MrFahey confirmed that the Irish authorities were content with progress.
The Council discussed the consultation arrangements which should apply in respect of the new Commission. The Council considered that it was important that the Commission should, as a priority, bring forward proposals for a new non-statutory advisory body which would draw in a range of those affected by its functions.
The Council approved a list of key duties which it wished the Commission to bring forward at an early date. These comprised: appointment procedures and terms and conditions for chief executive; mission statement; year 2000 corporate plan proposals; staffing proposals, structure and terms and conditions; proposed revisions to staff contracts; draft code of conduct for board members and staff; and finally, proposed programme of work.
The Council discussed the schedule of sectoral meetings likely to take place during 2000. These were provisionally set for early May, September and the first week in December. The Council agreed to meet again in this format in early May 2000.
Finally, the Council considered and approved the draft joint communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Speaker: We now have up to 45 minutes, if required, for questions to the Minister.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the Minister enlighten us a little on the new non-statutory advisory body? There is already a substantial amount of money being expended on the North/South body itself. How much is this non-statutory advisory body going to cost? How many members will it have and who will they be? Is it going to be more jobs for the boys?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There are no proposals as yet and, as I reported, this is a matter that will be considered. Many people from the fishing industry who use the Foyle and Carlingford Loughs have expressed concerns to my Department, and I think it would be useful to consult with them. I assume that the advisory body will be a means of taking on board the views of people who are not actually on the Commission, but as yet there are no proposals.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome the Minister’s statement. My question is about lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and arises from the report which was presented to the Assembly by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 18January 1999. Under the section relating to the North/South body in aquaculture and marine matters it says
"Given that the CIL functions in an East-West context, arrangements will be made to maintain linkage with the relevant British authorities."
I understand that the context is that for over a century now lighthouse provision in this island has been funded out of a general lighthouse fund to which the current Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, John Prescott, acts as trustee. He subsidises the operation of lighthouses in the North and, it has to be said, in the Republic of Ireland as well.
Were arrangements relating to the East/West aspect of lighthouse operation discussed at the recent meeting which the Minister reported on?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Legislation is being prepared to deal with the important issues that come under the jurisdiction of the Commission of Irish Lights, in particular, where the British Government has a concern. However, the arrangements were not discussed at the last meeting.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell the House which waters the Irish Government now controls but did not control prior to the setting-up of this body? There is, take it from me, deep concern in the Carlingford Lough region about what is happening there.
Will she explain how the body has an estimated spend of £431,000 since it was set up? What has that money bought for the people of Carlingford or Foyle? I would like to know where the money is to be spent or was spent. According to page 25 of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2000-01 it will be spent on services under the Government of Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2001.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Commission is now responsible for the Newry area including the Newry canal, Clanrye river and others.
The rest of the question related to the money spent on—

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The money spent as listed in the Estimates.

Ms Brid Rodgers: That is the provision for next year.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: What is it buying?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I think that that will be a matter for the Commission.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I will raise the matter with the Minister at the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, which I chair. I hope she will have answers then.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind Members that these are questions to the Minister about the statement. Questions to the Minister on the Estimates, for example, will be taken at another time. Clearly the Minister cannot be prepared for questions on Estimates when the statement is about the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. The purpose of the questions is to address that particular issue.

Mr P J Bradley: I note from paragraphseven of the Minister’s report that the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Mr Fahey, confirmed that the Irish authorities are content with the progress of the transfer of Irish Lights to the new Commission. Will the Minister say whether the transfer will have any bearing on the jobs of those currently employed by Irish Lights?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for that question. No, it is intended that the contracts of employment of Irish Lights staff will transfer with their functions and there will be no detrimental change in their working conditions.

Mr David Ford: Aquaculture is one of the important functions of the new body. Given what she has said, will the Minister expand on the timescale for legislation in this area?
I noted her comments on the idea of an advisory body to work with the cross-border body. Given the wide range of functions included in that body’s remit, I find it difficult to see why representatives of anglers or landowners on the Owenkillew river would necessarily want to be on the same advisory body as those who fish or sail on our saltwater coasts. Will the Minister give consideration as to whether more than one body might not be more appropriate?

Ms Brid Rodgers: With regard to the licensing of aquaculture, the legislation amending the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 to extend the functions of the Loughs Agency, including the development and licensing of aquaculture in LoughFoyle, continues to be progressed. A number of policy matters between the two Departments sponsoring the Loughs Agency — the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in Dublin — proved more difficult to settle than anticipated. However, instructions are now being finalised and forwarded to the draughtsmen in both jurisdictions. I hope that the legislation will be brought forward in September.
The second part of the question related to consultation. We are awaiting proposals which will include sub-committees for the areas and functions.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I wish to draw attention to the need for work to be done on the conservation and management of our fishery stocks as a natural resource. Does the Minister agree that that should receive priority status amongst the work of the Department and the council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I wish to thank Éamonn for that question. The Commission will deal with the need to conserve stock, to develop the fisheries and to manage the whole area. The answer to the question is "Yes". I accept the importance of the issue, and I look forward to seeing the Commission work very fruitfully in that area.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: In her statement the Minister said that good progress was being made. Is she concealing the reality of the situation? A departmental memo from MrDerickAnderson to a MrLavery contains the most disturbing news that seizures of illegal nets and boats on the tidal Foyle have fallen from over 700nets and 80boats in 1996 to 350 nets and 40boats in 1999, and that illegal fishing has been taking in excess of 10,000 salmon from this area per annum.
That is the equivalent of between one half and one third of the legal commercial catch. As the Department is unable to recruit the temporary staff required to maintain this river, should the Minister not have brought this material to our urgent attention in her statement today, to make us all aware of the current dire and, indeed, most disturbing situation?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My report was on the central meeting, which dealt with the legislative and administrative arrangements that must be put in place to deal with the many issues that will come under the commission’s management. There is good evidence of deterrents: continuous vigilance will be needed, and temporary staff are, in fact, being recruited to deal with this. I was reporting on the discussions we had on putting the arrangements in place. There has, of course, been a three-month gap. We had intended to have a meeting in May, but, unfortunately, we were unable to. We hope that that meeting will now take place at the end of this month.

Mr John Dallat: Can the Minister assure the House that the Commission will avail of every opportunity to promote angling tourism on an all-Ireland basis? What proposals are there to encompass the activities of The Honourable The Irish Society, which controls fishing rights on other rivers in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I can assure MrDallat that I want to see the Commission developing the tourist potential of angling and fishing in particular, on a North/South basis, and I have no doubt that it will proceed to do that.

Mr Jim Wells: The Minister thanked the hon Member for South Down, MrONeill, for his question — and very helpful it was too — but I can assure Members she will not be thanking me for my question. Will the Minister take it from me that many of the anglers who fish in the waters that flow into Carlingford Lough remain totally and implacably opposed to this whole process? They see this as artificial interference in the good management of Carlingford Lough, as was carried out by the Fisheries Conservancy Board, and they also see it as being done for pure political expediency.
Many of the anglers feel very aggrieved that they now have to liaise with a body whose local office will probably be based in the Irish Republic and that they will have to buy two licences, one from the old Fisheries Conservancy Board, and one from this new body. This will do absolutely nothing to promote angling and fishing in Carlingford Lough, and there will not be one more fish left alive as a result of this vast expenditure.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question, which is, indeed, very welcome. All questions are welcome; that is what I am here for. In relation to the licensing situation, the Fisheries Conservancy Board in Northern Ireland and the Eastern Fisheries Board in the Republic of Ireland operate as agents of the Commission in delivering services. Arrangements are in hand for the commission to begin delivering services itself as soon as possible. The commission has approved staffing and accommodation, and there are other proposals which await approval. The Commission will be taking over the ongoing work.
The staff of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission have an effective track record in the protection of fisheries in the Foyle area as part of their role in the Foyle Fisheries Commission. I expect that they will continue to deal effectively with poaching in their extended areas of responsibility. In relation to licences, it is not true that people will have to pay for two. Those who have mistakenly bought a licence to fish in one or other area, will, if they write to the Commission, be given the right to fish in both areas.
With regard to the areas which come under — [Interruption]
They will be allowed to fish in both areas with whichever licence they have bought. There is no problem with that. When they want to fish in areas that come under the Fisheries Conservancy Board, they will be able to buy, at a very cheap rate, an endorsement of the licence they have, not two licences. The licence that they already have can also be endorsed at a very small fee, which is much less than the sum of the two fees added together.

Mr William Hay: The Minister said that there was no real difficulty for employees of Foyle Fisheries Commission to transfer to the Implementation Bodies. I know, from Foyle Fisheries Commission employees, that they have had great difficulty and could not understand why they were doing it. Following on from that, can the Minister guarantee that those people who have transferred their pension rights, employment rights — and every other accompanying right — will have those rights safeguarded?
My other question concerns the North/South Ministerial Council. My understanding is that Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners, who control a fair portion of the River Foyle and have a reasonable amount of activity on it, have not been consulted on any issue concerning the area they control. I hope, that when the Minister sets up the advisory committee about which she is now talking, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners are brought into the equation. She may rest assured they have a great deal to say concerning the whole issue of this advisory panel now being set up by the Minister. I wish to make it clear to her that Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners very much wish to be contacted by her concerning the whole issue of the area they control.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question and advice. I hear what he says about Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners. As I have already stated in response to an earlier question, employees of the Foyle Fisheries Commission will be guaranteed that there will be no detrimental impact on their employment, and their contractual rights will be transferred.

Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee agreed an indicative time of two hours for the debate on the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements. I remind Members that they will have seen only one amendment on the Marshalled List.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is the time limit on these speeches today?

Mr Speaker: Under the new Standing Orders — and I hesitate to advise Members of this — there is no limit on time. Members will recall there was a time limit of 10minutes in our Initial Standing Orders. Now that is no longer the case. The Business Committee has, however, given an indicative timing for the debate as a whole of twohours. Clearly, Members speaking for longer will limit the amount of time available to their Colleagues and other Members of the Assembly. Those in the Chair will try to assist Members to keep to reasonable brevity, consistent with being able to express their views with clarity.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The purpose of the Memorandum is to set down principles which will underlie relations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved institutions. As such, it is central to the way in which business will be conducted in each part of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Assembly is part of the governance of the United Kingdom. It is our task to formulate and deliver public policy for which we have the responsibility in Northern Ireland, in line with the needs of the local electorate. However, we are also part of a bigger picture, and we need to take account of what is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
This document is therefore designed to reconcile these two roles. It is not legally binding but it is a statement of political intent, binding in honour only. It reflects the post-devolution politics of co-operation, goodwill and a recognition of mutual responsibilities. Some may say that the document should be legally enforceable. However, trying to make the arrangements enforceable in law would not be in keeping with the spirit of co-operation, which is necessary for devolution to work. Such an approach would merely serve to indicate a breakdown of relations and a distrust in the goodwill of others to implement these proposals.
The Memorandum was agreed between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly of Wales on 1October1999. The Executive Committee has now considered the documents and agreed them with one addition, which I will come to shortly. It is useful to have a document setting out clearly and sensibly the ground rules for our relations with the United Kingdom Government and the other devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. I now propose to say a few brief words about each of the five documents in the Memorandum that is laid before the House today.
First, the overall Memorandum of Understanding contains the main principles to be followed, and it deals with communication, consultation among Administrations, exchange of information and confidentiality, and the monitoring and management of the devolution settlements. It establishes a commitment by the Administrations to good and timely communication with each other, to co-operation on matters of mutual interest, and to the exchange of information on scientific, technical and policy issues. It also provides for the arrangements set out in the Memorandum to be reviewed and updated at least once each year.
Secondly, the agreement on the Joint Ministerial Committee sets out the terms of reference for that committee, and how it will operate. The committee brings together Ministers from each of the devolved Administrations and from the United Kingdom Government. It considers reserved matters that have an impact on the Executive Committee’s responsibilities, and in turn, devolved matters that have an impact on reserved matters. Plenary sessions, chaired by the Prime Minister, will be held at least once each year. The committee will monitor relations generally and will be able to address particular problems and issues that may arise. Already there is what could be called a small family of subject-specific Joint Ministerial Committees. They have been established, for example, on health, poverty and the knowledge economy. These committees have embarked on a useful programme of work. Indeed, it is interesting to note that today the First Minister and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been in London attending a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on health.
Thirdly, on the co-ordination of EU policy issues, the concordat sets out how EU business is to be handled, including the exchange of information, the formulation of a single UK policy line, attendance at EU councils and related meetings, implementation of EU obligations and infraction proceedings. The agreement recognises Northern Ireland’s distinctive position within the United Kingdom in terms of its relationship with another member state and therefore extends the terms of the concordat to cover the North/South Ministerial Council as well as the European Union dimension of the cross-border bodies. This is the additional aspect to which I referred earlier.
This EU concordat also sets out the United Kingdom Government’s intention that Ministers of the devolved Administrations should be fully involved in discussions about what could be calle the UK policy on issues falling within their areas of responsibility.
The status and functions of the UK’s permanent representation in Brussels are unchanged, and the devolved Administration will be able to take part in less formal discussions with EU institutions and interests within other member states. Northern Ireland has always had a strong interest in European affairs. The agreement will enable us to have our devolved status acknowledged and also retain the benefits of having the weight of the UnitedKingdom behind us on agreed policy positions.
Fourthly, the arrangements proposed in the Financial Assistance to Industry agreement are consistent with the provisions in the NorthernIreland Act 1998 and aim to balance fairness and value for money with the need to negotiate flexibly and effectively. The aim of this concordat is to resolve the difficulties that arise from competing UK agencies bidding against each other for large mobile investment projects. The arrangements give the commitment that NorthernIreland Ministers and their officials will be fully involved in discussions on UnitedKingdom policy in this area.
Fifthly, the International Relations concordat covers the formulation of UK policy on implementation and conduct of international relations, co-operation over legal proceedings, representation overseas, visits, public diplomacy, trade and investment promotion, and finally diplomatic and consular relations. It makes clear the Executive Committee’s responsibilities for implementing international obligations on the UK which relate to its devolved responsibilities, and also the arrangements for the Executive to play its part in the conduct of international relations. It reflects a mutual determination to ensure close co-operation in these areas between the United Kingdom Government and the Executive Committee Ministers in NorthernIreland, with the objective of promoting the overseas interests of the United Kingdom and all its constituent parts.
Sixth, and finally, for the statistics concordat, it is sensible that each Administration has the comparative information it needs. The agreement will help ensure that such information continues to be available at NorthernIreland and UK levels. The concordat sets out an agreed framework for co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations on all matters in relation to statistics. I would like to add that the NorthernIreland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) was involved from the outset in its preparation.
I have spoken briefly about what these documents are. They are a first attempt to set out a basis for a working relationship in this new era of devolution within the United Kingdom. More detailed provisions relating to individual policy areas will follow in bilateral concordats to be drawn up between individual Departments of the United Kingdom Government and their devolved counterparts. As a first attempt, therefore, I think these documents are both comprehensive and comprehensible. Provision has been made for the concordats to evolve and be developed in the light of experience. They are merely working documents and part of the machinery that potentially will allow the Executive Committee to work well with the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said at the outset, Scotland and Wales have already considered and agreed their respective documents and are already putting the principles into practice.
I commend the memorandum and the supplementary agreements to the Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add
"will not take note of the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between Her Majesty’s Government and the NorthernIreland Executive Committee until the political parties have been consulted thereon."
On Thursday, these documents were delivered to our pigeon-holes, and today we are expected to rubber-stamp something of deep significance. It is all right for Mr Nesbitt to tell us that these are not legally binding. This is a statement of political intent, and that is just as binding as a legal document.
The problem is that we have an Executive that has run wild taking powers to itself, and whether those powers are legal or whether we are just talking about political intent, they lay hold of them, as has been seen by the action of two of the Ministers, the First and Deputy First Ministers, who threatened two of my Colleagues with a grand inquisition chamber today. I am glad that my two Friends said no.
It is very interesting that they did not summon the two IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers who saw to it that no Union flag flew, in keeping with the present status of the law, on their buildings on Friday. I even understand that no flag could fly over the office of the Secretary of State, because that property too is under the control of the Minister of Health.
I find it highly reprehensible that the First and Deputy First Ministers quoted newspaper reports without naming the newspapers and said that, because of those newspaper reports, they were summoning my Colleagues to attend a meeting. When Members of the Executive think that they have the power to summon Members — [Interruption]

Mr John Kelly: Does this statement by Dr Paisley have any relevance to the discussion of this document?

Mr Donovan McClelland: May I ask Dr Paisley not to stray from the document in front of us.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Yes, but I am illustrating a point. If this deaf and dumb man does not understand the point — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, I must ask you to desist from that type of language.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: What did he say?
It is quite parliamentary, I assure you. The Clerk could not show you anything in the book that says that calling a man deaf and dumb is either unscriptural or out of keeping with the laws of this particular place.
I am seeking to illustrate how power has been seized by people who are drunk on it — they are not going in accordance with legality.
We have a new word here, and I congratulate the ecumenist who introduced it. He has got into religious language for the first time. This is a concordat.
It is interesting to know the history of such concordats. I went into the Library, and consulted our brilliant Librarian friend, Mr George Woodman, who is good to us all and treats us all with great respect. I must say that I respect him for his wisdom and for his love of books. He found for me the meaning of "concordat".
A concordat is an agreement, a compact, between the Vatican and secular government on matters of mutual interest. I laughed when I saw that. I wondered why his Leader had been away to the Vatican early on in this Assembly to see Papa himself, and I wondered why the Deputy Leader on the other side was also away visiting the Pope — but things are coming out in the wash. The word "Papa" is Italian for "Pope" — in case this dear man gets excited.
At least they have this ecclesiastical language. A famous concordat was signed in the 1920s between the fascist Mussolini and the Vatican. We are in good company. The name they have used to describe this particular document is most interesting.
There are many things I could say today, but I am a parliamentarian and there are others who want to take part. I could speak for two hours on this subject, and rightly so, and you could do nothing about it, Mr Speaker. I am not going to do that. I will allow time for capable people to serve their own interests. This concordat on co-ordination of European Union policies on Northern Ireland is the most one-sided document I ever set eyes on. For the information of MrNesbitt, there are three parts to Europe. Only one part is emphasised in this document: the Council, which consists of all the member states’ Ministers on the relevant subject. There are also the Commission and the Parliament. This document says nothing whatsoever about the European Parliament. It ignores the fact that the leader of the SDLP is a member of the European Parliament. It ignores the fact that Mr Nesbitt’s own party has a representative in that Parliament, and it ignores the bitter fact that in the last five European elections I have beaten them all, and I am still in Europe.
What mighty benefit did this country ever get from Europe? Even our enemies would cite the peace and reconciliation money. Who got that? The three MEPs got it, but they are now to be ignored. There is no place for them in this document. Why is that? Love of greed for power. Little birds fly through the windows where the Executive meets, and then they fly to me and tell me what is happening. They tell me of great discussions, held secretly and with laughter. "We can put a spoke in Ian Paisley’s wheel in Europe" they say, "We will set up our own office, financed by the people of Northern Ireland, and use it for party political ends to forward our own selfish interests, and we will not need to consult the MEPs. We might whisper a few little things in John Hume’s ear to keep him sweet and happy, but the others, especially Ian Paisley, will not know." If that is the way they want to play it, let them. It is an outrage to the people of Northern Ireland.
This House knows that all the vital decisions for the agriculture industry are made in Europe. They are not made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. If we are going to get agriculture out of its present mess and bankruptcy, we need a regional policy for Northern Ireland in Europe that is different from any policy for Scotland, Wales or England. We have different needs, which must be met. Now there is talk of unity, of a single common policy.
That happened with the present Minister of Agriculture. I regret that she is not in the House today. She went to Europe with the Fisheries Minister and came home telling us that she had got the best of a bargain, yet 15% of our cod industry disappeared. Why? Because she was part of one presentation. We need to have the power, and the right, to make a presentation on a regional basis.
Other European countries that have devolved government such as Germany have catered for their areas and the needs of those areas, even though they are different from the national needs. In fact, when they suffered from swine fever, special legislation was passed in Europe to exempt parts of Germany, the national territory, from those regulations. We have a set-up here in which we are all going to be one, and the Executive thinks that this is how it is going to get anything better for NorthernIreland.
I have sat in Parliament and heard fierce criticism of the peace and reconciliation money. I have heard English Members of the House crying out "Why do we not get this? Why is it not for us?" It was given by M Delors of whom I was never a fan, but at least he realised, because of the pressure that we were putting on him, that people who had suffered tragedy in the past should be tended to, and their needs attended to, by places that got vast amounts of money from Europe. We won that argument, and we got that money.
We need time to consider this document. We need to get provision into it to enable every representative, whether in Europe, in the United Kingdom Parliament or here, to get his voice heard on this.
Various Assemblies and Conventions have met in this House — I have sat in them all. There were only two that I was delighted to sit in, and they were the two that my dear wife was a Member of. It was always a delight to come up and be with her in this House, because I do not see as much of her as I would like. Even when it was only a consultative body with no power, we were able to get the Commissioner to our Committee meetings. The Commissioners are now asking why. The reason is that the Executive does not want them to come to Committee meetings here.
Why should the Commissioner for Fisheries not attend the Agriculture Committee of the House? Why should the men who are responsible for industry not attend the appropriate Committee of the House? The way to get into Europe is to bring these men here, let them see the country and get them to our Committees where they can hear from the representatives who are on those Committees. That has all been swept away; there is not a word about that — not even a consideration or a mention.
We are told that this is a consideration document and that it is easy to understand. I understand what they are doing, and the people of NorthernIreland will understand it. I have marked certain things in this document, and I could go over them. However, it seems that the Executive is intent on driving this through today. We got it on Thursday, and we have to come here today and make these decisions.
These decisions, although they are not legal, are the policy under which the Executive is going to work. They are going to have sad effects upon our economy, our fisheries, our agriculture, our health and social services and all other matters that have now very much become part of Europe. I wonder how all these supposed good Europeans that I have heard are in the Assembly think that the European dimension can be dismissed. Three representatives are needed. In fact, we were done out of the number we needed. Compared with the South of Ireland, we should have at least five or seven members in Europe. We were done out of that. In fact, at the beginning they only wanted us to have two members.
The Official Unionist Party said that only two should go to Europe. It thought that they would both be Official Unionists, and was glad there were three, because it discovered that its man was always the third to be elected. That is why that was changed. However, we should have five representatives in Europe, and we should not be diminishing their value. Members in this House may not like me. I do not care a fig — I will sleep well tonight and wake in the morning and have my porridge as usual.
Members in this House are saying to their MEPs "We are finished with you now. You have had your say; you got the money and we have spent it. Now, as there is no more peace and reconciliation money coming, we can dispense with you." I must tell the rest of my story. They said "We will set up this wonderful office." I have heard of offices being set up before in Europe. They did a mighty lot of good!
The poor businessmen who went over were highly charged for what I, a Ballymena man, could have offered them for nothing. I said to a man "What did they charge you?" "Well," he said, "it was a large sum of money". I asked "What for?" "To take us round". Any goat could surely take a person round that place. It is desperate what that office did. Then it tried to get all the parties to be members of it. It actually put on the names of two of my Colleagues. I wrote to tell it that the Democratic Unionist Party was not in the office and to take the names off. I had a terrible job getting it to take my Colleagues’ names off the notepaper. It insisted that it was a broad church, taking in everybody. That is a church of which I do not want to be a member.
Now another office is going to be set up. Perhaps Mr Nesbitt, seeing that he knows all about this, has defended it, and is its chief apologist, could tell Members some things about this office that is going to be set up. Where will it be located? How much money is being set aside for it? There is not a word about that. It is just passed over without any detail. How many people are going to work in it? Who is going to supervise it? Is the hon Gentleman going to have a continual junket to Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Hear, hear.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: He is saying "Good". I thought that he, as a friend of Sir Reg Empey, would not like any perks. However, he did not get on as many quangos as Sir Reg, and so he was unhappy. Let us talk about this office. Where is it going to be? How many members are there going to be? What standing and influence is it going to have? Who is it going to sway? Does he think that the representatives he sends, civil servants, will be able to do for him what public representatives find great difficulty in doing — getting through to the heart of Europe and getting what we deserve from it? Everyone should remember that, per head of population, we have never got out of Europe the tax money we have put into it.
That is not my statement; that is the statement of the British Exchequer. Let us get down to what is going to be beneficial.
So as far as I can see, these concordats are about strengthening the hold of the Executive, and strengthening the hold of the First and Deputy First Ministers on the levers of government. Well, if people want them to strengthen their hold, let them. But what about Northern Ireland’s key industry, agriculture? We cannot have the same laws as the rest of the UK. Our system of agriculture is different. It grew out of a land war, out of people who owned everything and had to let go. Some of the great contenders among the leaders of Northern Ireland were men eminent in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who fought the tenants’ rights for the Ulster Protestant farmers. There were tenant rights fought for the Roman Catholic people as well. Our farming system is different. Our people are not tenant farmers. Their farms are smaller than those in England. It is a different type of farming. What does for the farmers of England does not do for our farmers.
Let us look at what happened in the BSE crisis. The Baroness was Minister at the time. Some of the farmers worshipped her. They always said "We had a lovely meeting with the Baroness", but I found her absolutely barren as far as farmers’ needs were concerned. The farmers decided to hold a great rally at the King’s Hall, and I was asked to go along and say a few words.
I was not highly critical of anybody, but a man from the Agricultural Producers’ Association was. However, the Baroness thought that it was I. Now, I could have said "Amen" to what he had said, but I did not. She got furious with me, and when we went in to see the Prime Minister she said "How dare you say what you said?" I asked what she meant, and she repeated what this spokesman from the Agricultural Producers’ Association had said. I told her that I had not said it but that I agreed with it. I said "When you were in Tokyo you said Ulster farmers will be treated the same as farmers in the rest of the United Kingdom." We did not have a BSE crisis. In fact, there is a bigger BSE crisis in the Irish Republic today than we have here in NorthernIreland.
It is because of what happened back then that we have a crisis in our industry today. Eventually the British Government had to admit that we were different after JohnHume, JimNicholson and IanPaisley met the authorities in Brussels and insisted they would not take no for an answer. They agreed that we were different and that they were prepared to make some slight move, but we are not out of that yet. What would happen if everyone agreed there was no such thing as a special place for Ulster’s agriculture, not because we are Cinderellas, but simply because it is our right? Would the Minister come back and tell us that another 15% of an industry has gone simply because we have had this concordat, and they have had one vital matter considered and agreed?
The British Government also tell us that they will know what is happening, that they will start early. I defy them to tell me what is happening in Europe — for Europe does not know what is happening. There is more business brought to the House in speed in Europe than anywhere else. And there is special legislation whereby the Commissioners can get a thing through the House in a gallop. To say that there is going to be a way whereby we will all know what is coming and will have weeks of discussions and be able to be in on the bottom floor is an amazing statement. For even those in the various Commissions do not know where the bottom floor starts in some of those proposals, and they certainly do not know where it ends.
Overall, the United Kingdom representative will be the Office who will approach the European biggies. It will not be public representatives doing the approaching, he will. I always thought that the Parliament was a place for lobby, but, evidently, now it will be a place where lobbying will be ineffective because the Commissioner can say "We have a concordat. We have agreed with your representative that this is what you are getting." And if the representatives from the Executive in Ulster say "This is the way", then they can say "We do not want to listen to you."
So here we have something that we need to take care of. I have spoken too long already, but it needed to be said. I have no apology for what I have said. I say to the representatives "What skin is it off your face to take this back for at least a week, or for two weeks, so that the parties in the House can all have a look at it and then come back and say where they differ and have a proper debate on it?"

Mr Sean Neeson: I have a fair amount of sympathy for the points that Dr Paisley has made, and there are a number of issues within the documents that need clarification. If Dr Paisley were to establish some form of timescale whereby this could be brought back to the Assembly, I would be prepared to go along with that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not want to prolong the thing. But I want to have time to look at it.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask Dr Paisley to address the House through the Chair.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, in reply to the question that has been put to me, we can have a timescale — a reasonable timescale — and we must have an opportunity to put down amendments to various things that the Executive wants to carry through. That would be reasonable. Let it go back to the parties, for there is no use in taking it back to the Committees, because they are divided. Let them go back to the parties and let the parties then come. But I would be happy to go to the various Committees if that were the mind of the House. I would have no problem with that.

Mr Sean Neeson: There are a number of issues that need clarified on what is being proposed. I do not necessarily agree wholeheartedly with Dr Paisley, because in many ways what is being put forward strengthens devolution, but there are concerns. For example, does the Pledge of Office undertaken by individual Ministers oblige them to fulfil the understandings reached within these concordats? On the question of the memorandum of understanding, what measures are envisaged for general consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly — rather than the Secretary of State — on non-devolved matters in which the people of Northern Ireland have a particular interest? One example, from the Scottish Parliament, is that Jack Straw has allowed the entry into the United Kingdom of Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist.
The event will take place in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament has spoken out against his being allowed into the country. I see a serious conflict of interest arising in that situation.
I agree with what DrPaisley said in relation to the concordat on co-ordination of European Union policy issues as they relate to Northern Ireland. I quote directly from the document, underlining the case that has already been made:
"The role of Ministers and officials from the devolved administrations will be to support and advance the single UK negotiating line which they have played a part in developing."
The case of the BSE crisis is crucial in showing the fallacy of going forward with a single UK policy. Devolution is there to reflect the interests of the individual regions of the United Kingdom.
What plans do the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have to bring European legislation to the attention of the Assembly, and to ascertain the views of Members?
One other issue that greatly troubles me is in the concordat on financial assistance to industry. All the regions of the United Kingdom are in competition. A few years ago, the textile company Hualon wanted to establish a large factory at Mallusk. However, due to the delay resulting from the intervention of another UK region that opposed the grant assistance which was being proposed for Hualon, Northern Ireland lost the opportunity of a major investment.
With regard to financial assistance to shipbuilding, the Government are abiding strictly by the European legislation — other regions of Europe are not.
There are a number of issues that need to be clarified in relation to the document, and I ask the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to seriously reconsider pushing this through the House today. Let us have some further consultation on it.
I recognise the need for these concordats to develop the necessary linkages, and I appreciate MrNesbitt’s point that they will be reviewed annually. However, I ask for more time for the Assembly to consider a meaningful input.

Dr Esmond Birnie: We should be grateful for the speech from the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party — not so much because it was a good example of Unionism, but because it was a good example of an exposition for Ulster Nationalism. The memorandum of understanding has been in public circulation since October 1999 in its Scottish and Welsh form — the Northern Ireland version differs slightly. A careful reading suggests that the arrangements are not about strengthening the prerogatives of our Executive, but are about a series of working arrangements aimed at trying to give coherence to the United Kingdom in an era of devolution. I would have thought that the Democratic Unionist Party would be in favour of maintaining the United Kingdom.
With respect to the amendment proposed by the DUP, if it wished to have more consideration of these provisions, its two Ministers could have been present at the meeting of the Executive last Thursday.
They need not have relied on little birds flying in and out to relay messages from the Executive Chamber. The amendment would negate the motion entirely if passed, so we do have to be somewhat unclear as to whether its intention or indeed its consequence suggests that it is truly an amendment indeed.
As the leader of the Alliance Party has already pointed out, there is currently a dispute between the Scottish Parliament and the Home Secretary in London, JackStraw, over his decision. The dispute relates to who should actually control immigration policy for Scotland and, more specifically, whether MikeTyson should go to Glasgow to fight. Perhaps he should come to Stormont instead. I use that example because it illustrates that what we are talking about today is not a piece of constitutional arcanery; it is not simply about changing the constitutional furniture in a way which will have no impact on the lives of ordinary people. The relationship between decisions at different layers of government within the United Kingdom affects everybody. The intense public interest in Scotland in the Tyson decision is indicative of that point.
I welcome the publication of these concordats. The whole structure of memorandum of understanding plus concordats is to serve, as one academic observer, ProfRobertHazell of the Constitution Unit in London, has put it, as a sort of gearbox within the rapidly changing post-devolution structure of government within the United Kingdom.
The idea of the memorandum of understanding, I think, first emerged back in July1998 when LadyRamsey was speaking in the House of Lords on the subject of Scottish devolution. But now the memorandum of understanding and the associated concordats are out in the open, and I trust that none of these mechanisms is designed to smother devolution at birth.
Now it has sometimes been feared, particularly by the SNP — and in a curious way it would seem that the DUP adopts a position somewhat similar to that of the SNP on these issues — it was feared, and perhaps still is feared by Scottish Nationalists, that the joint Ministerial Committees are some sort of device to discipline the devolved Administrations so that they toe the London line on policy issues. But I think that they offer the potential for those Administrations, including our own, to have a greater input into the formation of central United Kingdom Government policy. I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s initiative in December of last year when he established JMC steering groups, and I understand that one is meeting today to bring together the various United Kingdom Administrations on topics such as child poverty, pensions and the digital age economy.
Chancellor Gordon Brown said that the purpose was to create
"a new covenant of common purpose".
I think that even Dr Paisley, precisely Dr Paisley, could not object to the particular ecclesiastical allusion which is contained in that.
As regards EU matters the concordat speaks of maintaining a
"common United Kingdom negotiating line within Europe".
I welcome this, notwithstanding what has been said by other Members who have spoken, because advice which I have received from experts in Germany based on their experience. Each of the 16 German provinces — or Länder — has on occasions attempted to pursue a separate position, be it on agriculture or industry, in Brussels. The result has been detrimental to the Federal Republic of Germany’s overall bargaining position in the Council of Ministers.
The implication, I believe, is that in the long run we in Northern Ireland are better off with a common single United Kingdom position. This should, of course, be drawn up with input from the Northern Ireland Executive and, rightly, there is provision for that in the concordats. I also welcome the provision for and emphasis on monitoring industrial policy. The chief benefit here is the avoidance of expensive bidding wars between the various regions of the UK which would simply work to the benefit of a small number of global multinationals, by enabling them to move back and forth between regions where, they claim, they might set up a factory and to squeeze more and more Government grants out of long-suffering taxpayers. The concordat sets up a mechanism which will, hopefully prevent such bidding wars and hence achieve better value for money on behalf of the taxpayer.
In general these concordats follow the template already established last October in Command Paper 4444 relating to Scotland and Wales, though it is worth noting there are a few details relating to our own particular position — space is provided, formally speaking, for the operation of both the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council.
To conclude, I welcome this take-note motion from the First and Deputy First Ministers. These arrangements are, as the junior Minister noted, not legally binding, but they are part of the evolution of the UK Constitution and, just as that Constitution has in previous centuries successfully adapted to earlier challenges, I have no doubt that it can do so again in this era of devolution.

Ms Jane Morrice: I too took a great deal of time to go through these documents, and I have come to the conclusion that a great deal more clarification is needed, certainly on essential issues. If I may I would like to go through each of the memoranda and point out issues where certain clarification is needed. I will begin with the specific Memorandum of Understanding — and this is a simple point but one which perhaps lies outside our jurisdiction — but there are many references to four Administrations. Obviously, there is one in Northern Ireland, one in Scotland, one in Wales and one in the UK. I do not understand how the role of the UK Ministers, acting on behalf of England as well as of the UK, fits in here. A great deal more clarity is needed in order to understand England’s position in this newly-devolved situation and how UK Ministers, acting on behalf of non-devolved issues UK-wide, can also act on behalf of English issues.
I go on to what is, perhaps, a less contentious but equally important point about the rules on financial assistance to industry. The document states
"Separate but comparable arrangements apply in Northern Ireland."
There are common guidelines for industry. All parties to this concordat commit to mutual consultation in adequate detail and to a reasonable timescale where any party proposes to change its policy and practice. This is vitally important and could be very valuable to this devolved Government in Northern Ireland. For example, there is a consideration that we could, perhaps, change our support to industry and reduce our corporate tax rates, similar to the situation in the south of Ireland. When this was proposed in the past, the answer from London was always "Oh no. We must stick to the UK-wide line." I am assuming that, within this concordat on financial assistance to industry, we have the right to change policy as long as we consult in time. It would be valuable to clarify that we have that right.
Next, I wish to make a general point concerning statistics. I do not know whether Members notice this, but often Northern Ireland does not appear when UK-wide statistics are issued. Perhaps this occurs simply because television news leaves Northern Ireland out, but it definitely does not appear on UK-wide statistics adequately enough. Perhaps we could make sure we insist that Northern Ireland always appears on UK-wide statistics.
My final point, the most detailed of all, concerns the European Union. Both DrPaisley and Mr Neeson have mentioned our need always to share the UK line. The point that has been made that the BSE crisis exemplifies the problem where a solid, standard UK line is not appropriate in Brussels. I would also refer to parts of these concordats concerning the North/South Ministerial Council and the Special EU Programmes Body, and the fact that agreement will be reached at a North/South level on certain European issues. I want to know how agreement at that North/South level can be transferred into UK-wide agreement to adhere to a common line. There is no clarity on this issue. It has certainly not been thought through enough, and the UK-line argument must take much more account of the specific needs and demands of Northern Ireland as a distinct and special region within the UK.
On issues such as representation, I tend to agree with Dr Paisley when he speaks of the value of the role of European Parliament Members, for example. I am surprised that this document does not refer to Members of the European Parliament and their role in lobbying at European level. The question of representation does not in fact simply mean representation in Brussels, and I would be very interested in asking the junior Minister a question. I noticed a reference to representation overseas in the concordat on international relations:
"The devolved administrations may establish offices overseas within the framework of their responsibility for devolved matters (including for the provision of information on devolved matters to the public, regional governments and institutions, and promotion of trade and inward investment)."
I would be fascinated to know what consuls, embassies or offices we intend to set up in Africa, Asia, Latin America or Eastern Europe. A great deal more information would be useful on these issues. I agree that these documents are important, and Members of this House would appreciate more time to understand their exact implications and the Executive’s exact intentions when we sign up to or at least take note of them.

Mr James Leslie: I would like to add three or four observations to the comments already made by my Colleagues. In doing so, I want to focus on the fact that this memorandum, whilst not binding, is a statement of political intent. Political intent can always be changed by events, and there is plenty of scope in the wording of these memoranda for the devolved territories to probe the boundaries that have been set out. It does not say so in the document, but it is fairly obvious to me that it should be in the interests of the devolved territories to work together to find common interests. They may be remarkably effective in doing so.
It remains to be seen how that evolves in practice and it is, perhaps, the fear of this that has set the whole tone, certainly of the Memorandum of Understanding itself, to be quite schoolmasterly in the way that it continually reasserts the power and sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament to, in its own words, retain "the absolute right to debate, enquire into or make representations about devolved matters".
It is a pity that Assembly MemberRoche is not here because he always seems to be rather confused about sovereignty. He would undoubtedly find it helpful to read these documents, as they seem to be very specific on this point.
I will not go into the points that have already been made on the European Union, but I noted rather fierce wording about the differences of approach in implementing EU regulations. It is apparent that across Europe there is a very considerable difference of approach towards the implementation of regulations. Some European countries are very much more expert in this matter than others. I was struck by the emphasis, which occurred several times in the document, on the importance of having, effectively, a common approach and that Whitehall intended to have a close scrutiny role in this.
Furthermore, any devolved territory deviating from the central path would face any financial consequences that might accrue. I suggest that when the time comes, this Assembly should, perhaps, be bold in some of these matters, and it would be interesting to discuss with the other devolved territories what approach they intend to take. This will become particularly apparent when we come to matters where there are marked differences of emphasis between what is important in England and what might be important in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The last thing that we should do at this stage is clarify these matters too closely. It would be much better if that were left to emerge over time.
My final comment relates to the concordat on international relations. I was particularly struck by paragraph22, which pointed out that "the World Service aims to bring benefit to the United Kingdom and all its constituent parts by broadcasting authoritative and impartial news and information". I wish that I felt confident that it did. I note that the devolved Administrations were invited to maintain direct links with the BBC World Service on matters of mutual interest. I very much hope that this Administration will attend to a matter of mutual interest by ensuring that its broadcasting is both authoritative and impartial. I commend this motion to the House.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have had to endure your time in the Chair today. You are probably not enjoying it after listening to MrNesbitt’s death-inspiring speech and some of the other contributions. Indeed, I noted some of MrBirnie’s comments were akin to being ravaged by a dead worm. The Assembly and my party appreciate the fact that the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition have found merit in the proposal and the amendment that my party has brought forward. I hope that they will join us in the Lobby, if it comes to that, during the course of today’s sitting.
The real purpose of bringing forward this amendment is to secure for this Assembly what it deserves: full and proper consultation on what are indeed important matters. The question before the House is essentially that of whose interests come first. Is it the interests of this Assembly, acting for the people of Northern Ireland, or, as Mr Leslie said, are we to throw our trust in with a joint interest over which we do not have the same influence as in this place? Indeed, Mr Leslie has just asked the Assembly not to seek clarification, but the purpose of this House is to secure clarification so it can act, it is to be hoped, in the best interests of the people we represent. It is absolutely essential that we have clarification in order to move forward.
I should like to deal with some of the specific points raised. One in particular caught my attention: the issue of communication and consultation. That is exactly what we seek today, proper communication and proper consultation. This document outlines that on those two issues a certain set of procedures has to be followed. First of all, the Assemblies and the Ministers must alert each other as soon as possible to relevant developments within their areas of responsibility, preferably prior to publication. There is no established code of conduct as to how the Assemblies and the Ministers should alert each other. Is it by telephone call from Departmental Private Secretary to Departmental Private Secretary? Is it by letter or document? Is it by despatch between Departments or from the Minister? That point needs to be clarified.
It goes on to say that they must give appropriate consideration to the views of other administrations. We want to know what standard has been set for appropriate consideration. It is absolutely essential that we can at least assume that it will be higher than the consultation in this Assembly. Before Christmas we had the nonsense of the First Minister running off to Downing Street without even consulting his Agriculture Minister, and informing the PrimeMinister about policy matters to do with agriculture. That was within the framework of this Assembly. Can we at least assume that consultation and appropriate consideration of people’s views will actually occur, despite the previous standard of this House?
MrNesbitt is asking us to rubber-stamp a very unclear document. Indeed, if the issue of confidentiality — absolutely critical in some of the policies the memorandum deals with and will deal with — were to go through in its current form, we are told a code of practice would be established regarding access to Government information or that of equivalent devolved regimes, and, in due course, the requirements of future freedom-of-information regimes. Yet nowhere in these documents have we seen an outline code of practice. It is critical that the Assembly should at least be shown the code of practice so we can make a decision based not on trust — as some people would have us do — not on blind faith, but on the actual documents put before us. Without seeing that code of practice, this Assembly would be extremely foolish to endorse this Memorandum of Understanding. The junior Minister, instead of coming to this Assembly and asking us to rubber-stamp something incomplete, would be far better going back to his desk and completing the job he was given to do by his mentor, the First Minister. Perhaps if he came back with a better document, the Assembly would be pleased to lend it its full support. At the moment it is very difficult for him to ask for and, indeed, expect the full support and confidence of the House on this matter.
Parliamentary business, which appears on the memorandum, again shows some woolly-headed thinking by the junior Minister. He says in paragraph 14
"The United Kingdom Parliament retains absolute right to debate, enquire into, or make representations about devolved matters."
Fine and true. That covers the issue of sovereignty, and I have no question about that not even later in the document. But two sentences later in the same paragraph he says that Parliament itself will in future be more restricted. But what is it? Does Parliament have an absolute right or does it have a restricted right? There seems to be uncertainty, so both points are put in. What role Parliament at Westminster will have with regard to the activities of the Assembly must be spelt out clearly. In the past — and we all know our history — people said that the old Parliament fell because certain issues could not be raised at Westminster. But what side of the debate is the Ulster Unionist Party on? What side of the debate are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on in this issue? Do they want Parliament to retain its absolute right to inquire and to debate without restriction, or do they want to see Parliament’s right to debate and inquire into events in the Assembly restricted?
It is essential that the junior Minister confirm this matter to the House, because it is not exactly spelt out clearly here. Perhaps if it were spelt out in very clear and precise terms, SinnFéin and the SDLP would not support the memorandum. But the junior Minister should confirm that, if any future Westminster Parliament so determined, it could repeal the NorthernIreland Act 1998 without reference to the people of NorthernIreland and irrespective of referenda or whatever. That point was glossed over very quickly, but it should be spelt out and verified to the House.
In moving the amendment, my party leader mentioned the role of the MEPs, who are not, as far as I can determine, asking for special privileges. However, they are asking for one thing, and that is to be consulted about issues upon which, and this is clear, the three of them have a particular expertise. It ill behoves this Chamber, as it would ill behove the Administration, to ignore that expertise which has achieved, against the odds, tens of millions of pounds for NorthernIreland, for community and infrastructure projects, which for years were denied to us. All we are seeking is proper consultation, nothing else, just proper consultation.
However, unfortunately these concordats, especially the one on the European Union, actually wipe out that consultation altogether. The one on the European Union actually establishes that the Republic of Ireland has a greater influence on, say in and right to be consulted on NorthernIreland via the North/South Council than have Unionists or Nationalists directly elected in NorthernIreland itself. That should concern everyone in the House, no matter what his political baggage. Unionists in particular should be alarmed that if this goes through in its current form it will give Nationalists a greater say because Unionists are outnumbered on the North/South Ministerial Council.
The junior Minister is asking us, in the words of JamesLeslie, to trust and throw our lot in entirely with the United Kingdom representative. However, the UnitedKingdom representative does not always have the rights and interests of the people of NorthernIreland at heart. One would like to think that the United Kingdom representative, when he or she establishes the negotiating position for the United Kingdom, would be prepared to take on board the interests of Northern Ireland. But that is not always possible and it is rarely achieved. Usually the greater interests of England, and sometimes Wales, are achieved by the United Kingdom representative rather than the interests of all the regions. It is foolish for the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the junior Minister to ask us to sign a blank cheque for the United Kingdom representative on behalf of the Assembly and to let him expect, at any time, the full support of the Assembly on these important matters.
Mr Neeson and Ms Morrice raised the issue of investment, and their points were very well made with regard to financial assistance to industry. Indeed, if the procedures established under these terms and conditions had been followed, an industry in my constituency — one of the largest employers —would today be closed.
It would have considerably slowed down the rights of a company to determine where it should best be situated. Unfortunately, I do not believe that good business practice would be possible under paragraph 7 of the concordat on financial assistance to industry. That is not the way business is done in the modern world. It would preclude many businesses from operating effectively and from making arrangements in regions of the United Kingdom. Why should Northern Ireland have to wait before making offers to companies to locate or relocate here? We should not have to wait for another region to come up with a better offer, or until the prospective jobs go to a different member of the European Union. It would be better for Northern Ireland to strike while the iron is hot.
It is essential that the House, after considering the importance of what is before it, votes for my party’s amendment. This amendment will allow all parties to have greater consultation and consideration on these important matters before they are rubber-stamped. The junior Minister should return to his desk and put together a more substantial paper that we can support.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I call the next Member, I want to say that we have two more Members who wish to speak, plus Dr Paisley, who wishes to speak to his amendment, with MrHaughey winding up. I am aware of the time, and I hope that Members will also bear it in mind.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I will indeed be brief, not least because many of the points that needed to be made have already been covered. However, I reiterate that my party will be opposing the amendment, because we believe it to be disingenuous. The DUP did, as has been pointed out, have an opportunity to engage in full and meaningful discussions with the rest of the Executive. They chose not to. I can only describe it as disingenuous if they then call for further consultation.
Secondly, the whole notion that there is not enough time to discuss this is also disingenuous. The motion clearly asks the Assembly to "take note of" this memorandum, not to adopt it or make it a legal requirement. It has already been explained that there will be at least one annual opportunity to review this. If there are problems in the operation of this package that present difficulty for any part of the Assembly, there will be an opportunity to review it, because this is a modus operandi that will enable the various devolved Assemblies to interrelate and to work together.
We heard this morning the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s concern about the budget delays caused by suspension. We do not want to see any further unnecessary delays. It is unnecessary to delay if there are built-in opportunities to review, examine and change where required. On those two bases, it is disingenuous.
The play that Dr Paisley made on the word "concordat" was interesting. Members will remember from their history classes that the concordat was the conclusion of a row arising from the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. It was concluded, as he rightly said, between the Vatican and Italy in 1929. In line with most of his analyses, Dr Paisley was at least a century or two out. If he had pursued his enquiries with that eminent librarian, he would know that the word concordat has had many uses and interpretations since then, even among peoples who have never heard of the Franco-Prussian War or Mussolini, or perhaps even the Pope.
It is out of date, and it reflects, as I have said, some of the other ideas that we are constantly getting from the DUP. MrPaisley Jnr also referred to the good work that was being done by MEPs. I am glad he paid tribute to our party leader in this regard as well as in respect of the peace and reconciliation package. Our party leader had a similar agenda some years ago when he ensured the creation of the International Fund for Ireland which supplied money to people in need. Those are the kind of international pressures we should all be dealing with, and we should be working with the Governments involved in our devolved situation, in Europe and in an international situation. That would be a good benchmark for co-operation — the more co-operation we have at different levels, the better.

Mr George Savage: I support the junior Minister’s paper. Quite a number of things have happened in Northern Ireland over the past two or three years and I am referring in particular to the agriculture industry. There has been crisis after crisis — BSE, the pig meat sector and right along the line. Every time proposals were put forward in Belfast or elsewhere, they seem to have got lost somewhere along the way. If a committee is going to be set up in Brussels, or anywhere else, I welcome that. In my experience we in Northern Ireland have lost out over the last two or three years.
I would not want this to be another quango — this country is full of quangoes — but it should be a place where people representing their industry can go to do a bit of straight talking. I am speaking primarily about the agriculture industry, but there are many smaller industries that also need an injection of funds. It would not take much to make a big difference, and I hope that the proposals put forward by the junior Minister will carry a lot of weight. Northern Ireland is a very small country, and we depend on our exporting industry so much.
This is going to be looked at every year, and we will have the opportunity to pull the rug from under the feet of these people if they are not fulfilling their obligations. One thing which concerns me very much is in paragraph3 of MrNesbitt’s paper, and that is that broadly uniform arrangements need to apply to the handling of matters with an EU dimension, notably financial assistance to industry. Financial well-being could have done so much to help the agriculture industry over the last two or three years — and could still do so. Finance has to come from various sources in order to get the industry back on to a level par with all our competitors worldwide.
I hope this proposal goes forward today. It will, in some small way, attempt to alleviate the problems facing the agriculture industry. Many of the small industries that we discussed today would also benefit from a bit of stability, but it would be a big bonus to the farming industry in Northern Ireland.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I have listened with interest to what has been said — especially to what MrONeill said. I am glad we have such a brilliant man among us, who can revise the Oxford dictionary. I trust that he will immediately write to the compilers of the Oxford dictionary and give them his definition of a concordat, because I read in the dictionary that it is an agreement; especially one between the Vatican and a secular Government relating to matters of mutual interest. My definition is from the dictionary. I did not write the Oxford dictionary. I am blamed for writing many things, but MrONeill is going to rewrite the dictionary. I congratulate him. I hope that he will do well, get the right definitions, and change the dictionary. Then, the next time I come, I will not need to waste the valuable time of this House explaining that the Oxford dictionary is wrong and that it cannot be upheld. The argument that he puts is absolute nonsense because we have a right to call for the business of this House to be conducted in a decent manner.
DrBirnie tells us that we should have seen the Scottish and Welsh memoranda. Who is he talking to? We are dealing with documents for this House. He had to admit that the memoranda were not even the same. Then he said that I am a Nationalist because of the speech that I made today — and him in harness with IRA/Sinn Féin. We know who the Nationalists in this House are, and who their fellow travellers are. I will not waste time in answering that. The House can roll this through because there is a majority — Members can do that. However, that will result in sad reaping because there are ways to influence Europe, and British Ministers have singularly failed in influencing Europe.
I pay tribute to my colleagues in Europe, as I always do, but M Delors addressed me, and me alone, at our meeting with him. I was the man who pressed him on the issue of giving money to those who had felt the cruel bondage of terrorism. At the end of the day he said to me "Yes, I believe we should help them."
That money was invaluable to us. Alas, the deadline will expire and, evidently, there will be no renewal. However, those who are elected to Europe and know how it works cannot be ignored. If the Executive want to go this way they can, but all these matters raised by other Members are important and they will result in suffering for the people represented.
I have been told that I should be in the Opposition. I am an Opposition Member of this House, and everybody knows that. However, I am then told that my two Ministers are responsible for this situation. I have never heard such balderdash in all my life. They were not present. They never received a letter summoning them to meet the inquisition. I would like to tell them that the inquisition days are over and the belts, the wheels, and the tortures are past. We are a free people, and we are not going to be railroaded by anyone. We will do our own thing within the law, and I congratulate my two Members.
I laughed. When it suited people in this House to applaud my two Colleagues, they applauded them. Then, when it did not suit their political way, they derided them. They cannot have it both ways. The two Departments will go on with their work no matter who is in the seat. We know what we are going to do — and we will do it.
Alas, the House has decided not to listen to the appeal that has been made today. Upon Members’ heads be it — carry on. However, they should not try and make excuses before the general public. When the general public questions Members on this matter, they should tell the truth.
Members must not try to say that they are giving a place to the MEPs when they are not. They did not even mention them. They did not see any place for them, and they should acknowledge that. They think that they can do better, but we will see. I wonder how many offices there will be and appointments made. They could have offices here, there and everywhere, but instead of spending money on offices they should be spending money on the people that need it most, and that is the farming community. Every extra penny should be going to the farming community, rather than on a grandiose scheme for offices round the world.

Mr Denis Haughey: I want to begin by bringing some superior classical knowledge to bear upon the debate about the meaning of the word "concordat". It simply means "it is agreed". Perhaps DrPaisley should have been looking at the old Latin primer and not the Oxford dictionary. It was used originally to describe the agreement between the Italian State and the papacy, but it has been used many times since to describe various levels of understanding between different bodies.
I beg leave to oppose the amendment and to call upon the House to support the original motion before it. In opposing the amendment I should say, with all respect, that DrPaisley appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the memorandum and its supplementary agreements. As has already been said, the purpose of the memorandum is to set down principles which will underlie relations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland. It is a declaration of intent to co-operate with each other, an administrative arrangement designed to facilitate best practice and good models of communication in dealing with business, so that good channels of communication can exist and the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Administration at Westminster and Whitehall are fully informed of what each of the others is doing and can communicate and discuss matters with them.
The memorandum was considered by the Executive Committee on three occasions, and the papers were provided to Executive Committee Ministers. Those papers clearly set out the purpose of the memorandum. I want to show the House the document that we are talking about. It was published in October 1999; it has been available since then; and explanatory papers and memoranda have been available to Executive Ministers. The DUP Ministers would have had a better appreciation of it if they had attended Executive meetings. However, they had all the papers and these should have been passed to their party colleagues and discussed with them.
Today’s debate arises out of the Executive’s concern to ensure transparency at all times and to keep the Assembly fully informed. Hence, the matter is being dealt with by way of a "take note" debate, rather than by a ministerial statement or a "teed-up" question for written answer, which would have deprived Members of the opportunity to ventilate and explore fully the issues involved. These documents, and all this material, have been in the public domain since last October. For many months now parties and Members have had the opportunity to read, to digest, to debate among themselves, to explore and otherwise to internalise the content. The Executive has, in fact, fulfilled the remit which is included in DrPaisley’s amendment: it has enabled parties and Members of the House to examine, discuss and analyse the documents.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Given that the Executive has discussed them three times, with, as I said, all the papers available to them, the purpose and intent of DrPaisley’s motion had already been anticipated and accomplished by the Executive before he tabled his amendment.
The further matters that I want to refer to arise out of points made by individual Members. I will come to them in the order that I noted them, and I will try to be as coherent as possible, although different Members did refer to the same points, and I may find myself repeating some considerations.
This concordat is between the Executive and the Westminster authorities. DrPaisley raised the question of whether the MEPs had any role in this. Without meaning any disrespect to any of the three MEPs, the answer is "No". Because the concordat is between the Executive and the Westminster Government, it does not concern or involve Members of the European Parliament. They are not central to the operations of this concordat.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: In the papers that I have — a Memorandum of Understanding and an agreement on the Joint Ministerial Committee — the word "concordat" has not been used. The word "agreement" has been used in the Joint Ministerial Committee paper. "Concordat" is only used in the papers on the co-ordination of European Union policies, financial assistance to industry and international relations.

Mr Denis Haughey: The Memorandum of Understanding sets down the general principles. The supplementary agreements refer to particular areas of policy and explain how the Memorandum of Understanding is to be applied in those areas. The Joint Ministerial Council is simply a mechanism by which the members of the Executives of the devolved Administrations may consult with the Ministers and Secretaries of State at Westminster, and among themselves. It is simply a mechanism.
However, I will deal with the points made by DrPaisley in relation to the representation of Northern Ireland as a region within the European Union. On the one hand there was his assertion that Northern Ireland needs a separate line, a separate policy and a separate approach to European issues. He specifically enlarged on that in relation to agriculture, and our need to elaborate a quite distinct and separate line about Northern Ireland’s interests.
I find it difficult to reconcile that with the assertion that he makes from time to time about the absolute supremacy and sovereignty of the Westminster Government. If we are to take a separate line in Northern Ireland then we need mechanisms, processes and facilities to enable us to pursue a different line, or at least a modified line on European policy.
DrPaisley took issue with the intention of the Administration to set up a facility in Brussels. As he rightly says, that is where all major policy decisions are taken in very important areas, such as agriculture. If he is opposed to the setting up of a facility in Brussels that would enable the Administration to pursue its interests directly through having its own servants and facilities there, would that not leave us totally dependent on UKRep? That brings me to the point made by MrIanPaisleyJnr, who said we should not be totally dependent on UKRep. Father and son need to get their heads together on that and decide which exactly we want. Do we want the facility to pursue our own line, or do we want to be totally dependent on UKRep? The two are not reconcilable. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: We intend to set up a regional office representing this Administration and our other regional interests in the European Union. Precisely because our interests totally diverge from the interests of English farmers we need to be able to pursue a different line. That is precisely the point I am making. I am glad to say that it would appear that on this issue Dr Paisley and I are as one person.
On a practical level, the processes and the mechanisms that the Executive will develop for pursuing the interests of this region in Brussels will; of necessity, and rightly, involve a primary role for the MEPs. Without appearing to be sycophantic, I pay tribute to them for the work that they have done and the many benefits that they have brought to this region through their co-operation, interaction and sharing of power in their roles as Members of the European Parliament.
Setting up the processes, the practices and the mechanisms by which we will represent our interests as a region in the European community will involve a primary role for the MEPs, but will also, I hope, involve a role for Members of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union, Members of the Committee of the Regions and their alternates, and many other people from a wide range of sectors in Northern Ireland society.
Dr Paisley said that we should have five representatives in Europe, rather than three. That confused me because in having three we have slightly more than our proportionate share of the 81 Members for the UK. If we were to have five that would indeed call into question the entire British link. And if that is what he wants to do he has an ally in me.
Dr Paisley said that we have never received from Europe what we have put into it. That may be true of the United Kingdom Government as a whole, but it is not true of Northern Ireland as a region. The United Kingdom Government has been a net contributor to the EU budget but Northern Ireland has been, enormously, a net benefactor of both the EU budget and UK internal budget. There is no real relevance in Dr Paisley’s point.
The concordat and the memorandum mentioned the Council of Ministers because it is the primary authority in the European Union. It is comprised of Ministers from the Member States and the memorandum includes the right for Members of the Executive in the House to take their place in the Council when appropriate.
Some questions were asked about the office in Brussels. Work is ongoing by way of providing this information to the House. The office will be located close to the European Parliament building. Its staffing will be a matter for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the numbers and levels have not yet been determined.
The role of the office will be to liaise with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that NorthernIreland’s interests are taken fully into account where relevant, to alert Government Departments here to issues arising in Brussels, to provide a base and support for visiting Ministers and to raise the profile of Northern Ireland in Europe.
Not all aspects of the shaping of the facility in Brussels have been agreed yet, but it will involve a formal level of representation where official business is carried out, and an informal level of representation where interests are pursued, information is gathered, lobbying is done and a facility is provided to representatives of the various sectors of industry and society in Northern Ireland.
Dr Paisley spoke about agriculture, which, in common with other major areas of policy, will be the subject of bilateral concordats agreed between the relevant departments in Whitehall and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will have its own separate concordat with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), which will set out a framework for relations within the overarching principles set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. These bilateral concordats between our Departments and those in Westminster will be published as and when they are finalised and agreed.
Mr Neeson referred to the Pledge of Office. The Memorandum of Understanding is not legally binding either on Departments or on Ministers. Rather, it represents models of best practice which, I hope, all Ministers and Members will support. Communication is a two-way street, and the Memorandum of Understanding also applies to the United Kingdom Administration and their obligation to inform and consult us.
With regard to matters such as the visa for MikeTyson, I should say that the Memorandum of Understanding and the concordats do not affect the constitutional position. There are still issues, such as immigration, which remain within the remit of the Westminster Government. The Memorandum of Understanding provides a framework within which consultation can take place on these issues, but at the moment it does not replace the United Kingdom Government’s authority under the legislation.
Mr Neeson also raised the Mallusk case. I cannot comment on specific cases. Clearly competition will continue amongst United Kingdom regions, and the IDB will continue to make every possible effort to secure success for NorthernIreland. However, the concordat will ensure — as DrBirnie pointed out — that competition does not lead to regions paying a higher price than they might otherwise do in order to secure inward investment. The current situation lends itself to competitive bidding between the regions. This can be to everybody’s disadvantage. In certain circumstances one might be able to sneak an advantage from it, but in the main it is to everybody’s disadvantage. The concordat and the memorandum of understanding provide us with a framework within which we can prevent that and, by creating jobs, reduce the subsidy burden on the taxpayer.
Ms Morrice made reference to the role of United Kingdom Ministers in relation to the supposed duality of their position in representing, first of all, the whole of the United Kingdom, but specifically the English interest in circumstances where there are three other devolved Administrations. Constitutionally that does not arise. United Kingdom Ministers do not represent England as a region. They represent all of the United Kingdom, while the Ministers from the devolved Administrations represent only the regions.
Ms Morrice also asked about NorthernIreland not being adequately represented in UnitedKingdom statistics. I should say in reply that this is exactly the sort of thing that the concordat is designed to deal with.
Dr Ian Paisley made reference to communication and consultation, and he set out principles and procedures for the Assembly. He mentioned telephone, fax, meeting, letter, and so on. All methods will be employed. In order to make sure that the public record is adequately maintained, in the main it will be done by writing, but in circumstances where urgency arises it may well first be done by telephone call or by other means.
Mr Paisley Jnr or Snr asked about the code of practice on access to Government information. This has been in the public domain since 1993 or 1994 and, therefore, is not a matter that has been kept from either himself or anyone else.
It was MrPaisleyJnr who raised the matter of whether the United Kingdom Parliament’s authority was to be absolute or restricted. In the modern world no Parliament or Government’s authority is absolute anymore. The UK Parliament, under the legislation that stands at the moment, retains overall authority but, essentially as a courtesy to devolved Administrations, it commits itself through these concordats, this memorandum of understanding, and indeed other conventions that have been drawn up through the years, to consult with devolved Administrations and not to legislate on devolved matters without such consultation. That is the situation that existed in the past, and the same convention will, I think, be applied to all of the devolved institutions that exist at the moment.
MrNeeson asked about timescales. As I said before, these papers have all been available since October, and parties and Members should have consulted, or at least read and digested their contents.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Given that the junior Minister has accepted that a number of points raised by my party, the Alliance party and the Women’s Coalition have identified, in the last two hours, a number of flaws that are apparent in this document, will the Member not reconsider his position? Will he agree to the amendment and give us time to rectify these flaws, so that this memorandum can go forward with the full confidence of the House?

Mr Denis Haughey: No. The various points that have been raised can be reconciled with the position that the Executive has taken. Many of the points are not contrary to the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, and the agreements that were made under it, but are entirely consistent with them. The memorandum of understanding, and the supplementary agreements, provide us with mechanisms for dealing with the points and objections that have been raised by Members.
MrNeeson raised the question of consultation on the part of the Secretary of State with the Executive and the Assembly on non-devolved matters. Under the legislation, at the moment, these matters remain in his charge. We may agree or disagree on whether that should be the case, but in law it is. We may agree about what he should do, but what he does under the law is a matter for himself. I hope that he will consult closely with the Assembly and the Executive on those matters that remain in his charge.
MrNeeson also asked about European legislation. Whether by directive or by regulation, consultation is with the European Parliament, but member state legislatures are notified at a very early stage of proposals from the Commission and the Council. The concordat and the memorandum of understanding will provide for an input from the three regional Executives who will make provision for debate in their own Assemblies or Parliaments and, where appropriate, in the Committees of those Assemblies or Parliaments.
DrBirnie raised the matter of DrPaisley’s speech which he said was a speech rather more in favour of Ulster Nationalism than Ulster Unionism. I think it would stand a good chance of being adopted by people in my party as a statement in favour of Irish Nationalism, but that is another matter. On the joint ministerial Committees, DrBirnie asked whether they would be "courts of Star Chamber" to bring devolved Administrations to heel. It may well turn out to be the reverse, where highly aggressive, deeply motivated Ministers, who have to get themselves re-elected here and in the other devolved Administrations, will seek very hard to bring the UK Secretary of State to heel on matters that vitally affect them.
I think that covers all the points raised in the course of the debate. I ask Members to note the memorandum of understanding and the supplementary agreements, and to reject the amendment.
Question put

Several Members: Aye.

Several Members: No.

Mr Speaker: I think the Ayes have it. [Interruption]
Order. The position is clear. I call for the Ayes and the Noes. If it seems to me that the Ayes or the Noes have it, I declare that that is the case. If either side disputes my declaration, Members repeat their call, at which point the Lobbies are cleared, and the Question put. It seems to me that there is extraordinary confusion about a procedure which we have gone through on a number of occasions.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 53.
AYES
Fraser Agnew, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Kieran McCarthy, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 52; Noes 23.
AYES
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Jim Wilson.
NOES
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.

Appropriation Bill: Accelerated Passage

4.45 pm

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 39(2), this Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Appropriation Bill.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: This motion comes at a very appropriate time. Because I and others in this House have taken a stand, we have been held up to all sorts of attack and vilification by Members of the House who oppose us in an attempt to justify their own positions. One of the arguments they have been using is that we are out to hinder ordinary people while continuing to get our money. On radio programmes I have heard people say that we do not want people to get their hospital beds or their social services and that we are doing this because we have nothing else to say. That is a colossal lie. I am glad this motion has come before us tonight, and in the circumstances, the fact that my party approves of this gives the lie to all that. As a party we welcome that, as do others in these Benches.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer the House to Standing Order 39(2), which sets out the requirements laid on a Minister who wishes to introduce a Bill and to ask leave of the House for accelerated procedure. There are three requirements: first, that the Minister give account to the Assembly of the reason or reasons for it; secondly, that he give the consequences of not so proceeding; and thirdly, that he inform the House of any steps that he has taken to minimise or avoid the future use of the accelerated passage procedure. Only then may he seek leave of the House. Are you satisfied, Mr Speaker, that the requirements of this Standing Order have been satisfied? There may have been a reference, perhaps in the Minister’s earlier speech, but that speech was about the introduction of the Appropriation Bill. Nevertheless, at this stage, in terms of setting a precedent, I would have thought that it would have been more appropriate for whoever was responsible for the Bill, whoever was actually moving the motion for the accelerated procedure, to have set out the reasons for doing so, rather than simply begging that it be moved. I defer to your guidance on this matter, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: There was, as Members can imagine, a substantial amount of discussion about this with the Speaker’s Office in advance. Given that the matters were on the same day, the requirements that we made of the Minister were that the reasons be set out in the statement, and that the Bill be published and available for Members on the day. This was so that Members, before having to vote on the motion before them now, would have had sight of the Bill for which they were being requested to provide a fast-track passage. The Minister is, of course, in a position to respond and may wish to do so at the end of this short debate. However, in terms of the requirements of the Standing Orders, I have no doubt that today, and in writing, the Minister has satisfied those requirements. I am making that judgement because there were substantial discussions in advance to ensure that all of these things within the sitting were before the House. The Minister may now wish to make his winding-up speech.

Mr Mark Durkan: As I said earlier, the approval of the Estimates and the passing of an Appropriation Act are among the most important responsibilities of the Assembly. I agree with points made by several Members that this is an unsatisfactory process. I explained the need for the accelerated passage, and how we aim to avoid the need for it in the future. However, the reality is that suspension has meant that it is not now feasible for the Assembly to undertake all the detailed stages that would normally be appropriate and essential.
I also acknowledged that we are, at this stage, implementing plans that were set before devolution, mainly in the 1998 comprehensive spending review. I agree strongly with the view expressed by many Members that we need to get down to the serious business of setting our own priorities through the Programme of Government. The question is of how best to do that, and my view is that it would be better to focus on the forward-looking aspects of this, even if that means proceeding with essentially inherited or hand-me-down plans for the immediate period.
Members will realise, and it was clear in Dr Paisley’s comments, that schools, hospitals, and all other budget managers, are already working on the basis of the plans set out in the Main Estimates. I believe that the best way ahead is to approve these Estimates, and focus our attention and time on planning for the future through the Programme of Government.

Mr Speaker: Before moving to the decision, I draw attention, as MrDodds did, to the Standing Orders, particularly the one in question, because accelerated passage is granted by leave of the Assembly. That means that there must be no voices against. Any single voice against would negative the motion.
Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order39(2), this Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Appropriation Bill.
The sitting was suspended at 4.54 pm.